The notion that communication and expression through various media, including written and electronic media, especially published information, should be recognized a right to be freely exercised is known as freedom of the press or freedom of the media.
The freedom of the press refers to the ability to criticize the government in the absence of fear of obstruction or punishment from the government, either before or after publication. In the United States, the terms ‘freedom of the press’, ‘freedom of speech’, and ‘freedom of expression’ are frequently used interchangeably, with ‘the press’ largely referring to print and electronic media. The clearest evidence of press freedom is the ability of opponents of the government or government leaders, laws, or policies to publish effective criticisms in default of fear of punishment from the government in the form of fines, imprisonment, or even death. That definition excludes communications that may violate laws of universal applicability, such as the law of fraud, or communications that violate a contract. It also excludes extralegal limitations such as a communicator’s perception of the community’s permissible range of expression or public pressures (including mob action) against the press during times of crisis. The legal definition of ‘freedom of the press’ in the United States begins with the forty-five words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were then passed by Congress, making it a felony to criticize the federal government or government leaders, among other things. The Historical Context section discusses these short-lived enactments, which sparked bitter party disagreement in the fledgling republic. Freedom of the press fluctuates: it increases during times of peace and decreases during times of war or national disaster, when it is most needed by society.
In short, freedom of the press is critical to the proper operation of a democracy. It is critical for people to be socially conscious of what is going on in the world. One must have the ability to criticize the government; this keeps the administration on their toes and motivates them to do better for the country.
It cannot be denied that the internet brought a revolution in certain aspects of human social lives. It is no doubt that the internet has provided a certain degree of freedom, which if combined with sufficient anonymity, and lack of control, can turn the granted freedom into chaos. In that regard, the same can be applied to the freedom of speech in the internet. This paper provides an overview regarding freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, on the internet, stating that, the absence of censorship as well its dominance might lead to a misuse that compromises the idea of the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech or freedom of expression, in the internet, refers to the right to express an opinion or an idea, through any electronic means. The issues that might arise through practicing that right are twofold. On the one hand, the freedom of expression on the internet allowed the general public to be informed about the true nature of the certain events, regardless of geographical locations and restrictions. The successful examples can be seen through the coverage of the events in Tianmen in Chine, the Kuwait Invasion, Iran election and etc. (“Internet Freedom of Speech,” 2009) The ability to express one’s opinion freely creates a dialogue, and in the case of the internet, it is a global dialogue.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech allows the widespread of pornography, personal attacks, falsified information, plagiarism and etc. One might argue that several of the aforementioned points might be regulated by the law. However, the nature of the internet makes it accessible for the general auditory, hard to control, and without boundaries.
It can be concluded that control and censorship are issues that should be considered in parallel to freedom of speech and expression. Even with the laws incapable of controlling the flow of information in the internet, it is an ethical responsibility for every user to refer to common sense when expressing his/her freedom of speech on the internet.
Before the Internet
The public access to such documents might have been possible through a library archive. In case of bills that were debated at the time, this might have been another issue where copies might be published before their hearing for public use. Other legislature documents also had the same fate, where for example accessing court records, required physically going into the courthouse. The disadvantages might be obvious, such as time consumption, search possibilities, and overall involvement. People tend to ignore political participation, if it does not concern them, or if it requires additional efforts.
In this case, the most obvious way is subscribing to medical journals, or using the library. The disadvantages include the limited search abilities, if any, where in order to find specific article on a particular topic, it would require examining hundreds and thousands of paper editions. Accordingly, the subscription to a specific journal would cost money, where internet resources also might not be free of charges, but the search options allows the user to be 100% sure that they are getting the information they need. In terms of libraries, their geographical dispersion would put require enormous efforts on finding the needed information and requiring a copy, specifically if the topic is not so popular.
Such procedure might have been done through posting an advertisement through the media. This might be a newspaper, a radio, or a rubric in a magazine. The disadvantages include paying for the advertisement, the time needed for the newspaper to be published, and the limited geographical coverage. The limitedness of choice would have not enabled the seller to address all the potential offers, and accordingly, the potential sellers would not have been informed about all the information regarding the poster.
Freedom of speech is the freedom that citizens are constitutionally granted by their country to allow the citizens to speak without limitations or censorship of what they say.
This freedom varies from country to country depending on levels of democracy and political situations. Freedom of speech is always advocated for and governments urged to constitutionally protect their citizens’ freedom of speech to enable people discuss issues that affect them.
There have also been views of negative effects of unmonitored freedom of speech calling for a balance between the freedom of speech and its limitations. This paper seeks to discuss freedom of speech. The paper will look at the human nature that necessitates speech and expression, freedom of speech as applied in different countries and limitations that freedom of speech faces.
Importance of freedom of speech
The nature of human beings to coexist with one another and developments that have led to democratic government systems have made speech and interactions fundamental elements in every society.
Developments of government systems and establishment of democracies have played a role in enlisting the participation of citizens in government processes in order to uphold the already established democratic levels in societies. It is this need to retain or even further develop democratic systems that has in the past led to the fight for freedom of speech.
The same reason still plays an important role in ensuring that provisions of freedom of speech are correctly implemented to take care of the intentions that were originally considered during formulations of such policies that governs freedom of speech. The nature of human beings to interact and communicate with one another is another element that necessitates freedom of speech.
Economic, political and even social aspects of life require an ultimate decision regarding a course of action to be taken regarding any particular issue. Matters that affect a large mass of people such as politics and national economic matters have been regarded as public aspects that are determined collectively (Mediainst 1).
Citizens therefore find it necessary to participate in such discussions pertaining to these public issues with the aim of checking and putting to task leaders and representatives to ensure that the interest of the people are looked into. Interactive forums also help people to be informed on current and developing issues in a society.
Freedom of speech, therefore, allows for transfer of information that helps different category of people in decision making. Effective decisions regarding election of political leaders, management of business activities and even personal and family decisions depends on information.
Information about government economic policies and trends in a country will, for example, affect small scale business established in a given township. Freedom of speech and access to information is therefore critical to citizens in their daily lives (Mediainst 1).
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is an element that is occasionally protected by laws of various countries. In the United States, for example, freedom of speech is strictly protected by the country’s first amendment.
According to the first amendment, freedom of speech is protected from manipulation by selfish individuals such as politicians who could be in power and intend to undermine criticisms from the general public.
For this reason, the first amendment of the United States constitution provided protection of the freedom of speech from legislative institutions such as the congress. Freedom of speech has also been liberalized in the United States to include non verbal expressions, motions and symbols that includes dressing codes (Camp 1).
Xinyi Wang explained the elements of the United States’ first amendment, which clearly, or as one would think it does, expresses the sanctity of freedom of speech in the United States. The constitution expressly states that the congress is prohibited from making legislations that would touch on the freedom of speech.
The first amendment also included other elements that are related to freedom of speech such as issues pertaining to the press and the fact that Americans were allowed to converge and share opinions in a peaceful manner and to stand and question their government in case the citizens felt aggrieved by the government (Xinyi 1).
In its application, freedom of speech protects subjects from liability to whatever they say, provided that the subject statements uttered by an individual are under the protection of freedom of speech as provided by a particular country.
Freedom of speech enjoyed by legislators in their course of legislation for example protects them from any liability emanating from anything that the legislatures say while in their legislative process.
The constitution of Canada for example provides that “no legislative councilor or member of the legislative assembly shall be liable to any action, arrest, or imprisonment, or damages” (Canadian constitution 69) as long as subject commission were undertaken in a process of conducting legislative duties in the premises for such duties (Canadian constitution 69).
In Britain, legislatures are only protected from speech uttered in their process of legislation. A similar application of the freedom of speech is applicable to other citizens.
Provisions are made by constitutions in different countries regarding freedoms that citizens are accorded with regard to speech and measures are then taken to ensure that subject to constitutional provisions, no citizens are held liable to any utterance that is made within constitutional provisions of freedom of speech (Canadian constitution 69).
Limitations to freedom of speech
Even though freedom of speech is expressly stated in a number of countries’ constitutions, and provisions made that freedom of speech shall be utterly protected by constitutions, a review of application of law by judicial systems reveals that constitutional provisions of freedom of speech have under certain circumstances been overridden by other factors.
When freedom of speech is not applicable, for whatever legal reason, then it means that constitutional provisions on the freedom have limitations with respect to interpretation and application. In the United States, for example, matters such as: “national security, justice or personal safety-overrides freedom of speech” (Freedomforum 1).
This means that an individual’s freedom of speech will be overlooked if any or all of these three issues are involved. A person whose speech threatens such issues like national security or infringes rights of other citizens might not be protected by freedom of speech.
The judicial system in the United States has, for example, established over time that utterances that: poses a threat to causing danger or violence, undermine “social value” and “conflict with other legitimate social or government interests” (Freedomforum 1) are not protected by freedom of speech (Freedomforum 1).
Limitations in the freedom of speech are also propagated by international bodies such as the United Nations. According to the United Nations resolution in its 1948 general assembly, it was agreed upon that as much as people had to be accorded freedom of expression, countries and states were not prevented from establishing measures that can possibly regulate parties in their process of disseminating information.
It was resolved that freedom of speech and freedom of expression calls for a level of responsibility on the parts of citizens and entities and thus governments were not restricted by the resolution from “requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises” (Whitmore 1).
The resolution at the United Nations assembly also stated that freedom of speech was subjected matters that are fundamental to “democratic society, interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for protection of health or morals” (Whitmore 1) among other factors.
This resolution thus recognizes territorial sovereignty in legislations that limits freedom of speech of an individual when it is considered to undermine sensitive public issues (Whitmore 1).
There are a number of limitations which have been imposed on freedom of speech within the United States. Obscenity has, for example, been expressly excluded from freedom of speech by the judicial system of the United States.
Other limitations on freedom of speech and press in the United States include “child pornography, defamation, speech harmful to children, compelled speech” (Cohen 26) among others. The need for limitation of freedom of speech is also expressed by Sadurski Wojciech in an argument that “self fulfillment” should be accompanied by self-control (Sadurski 18).
Freedom of speech is considered to bring satisfaction to individuals and for this reason, people must ensure that their freedom does not harm the fulfillment that other people wants to enjoy. Limitations are therefore necessary to ensure that every citizen enjoys his or her freedom (Sadurski 18).
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is important in a democratic nation and is internationally recognized and advocated for. It has been entrenched in a number of national constitutions and over time enhanced due to movements of human rights activists.
The provision and protection of freedom of speech by national constitutions is however at the same time limited by the same constitutions subject to rights of other citizens and national interests.
The Internet allows everyone the freedom to connect with other people and suppliers worldwide but an economical means for individuals to restrict their art or thoughts to the eyes of children is yet to be developed. Because of a lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law, a concept that is in itself considered unlawful by a strict definition of the First Amendment of the Constitution which unambiguously guarantees the right to free speech. Supreme Court decisions have consistently found that the First Amendment does not apply to obscene communications and have allowed communities to establish their restrictions regarding what is obscene. Ethics is in the eye and ear of the beholder. Access to the internet allows people to make their own decision about what is offensive.
Legal Interpretations
The ‘Average’ Person
The court in Miller v. California explained that if the ‘average’ person would describe the work as obscene or if it showed or expressed patently offensive sexual conduct without ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,’ the material is correctly defined as obscene (Mason, 2000). The community of the World Wide Web has combined to establish what is and what is not acceptable. Neither a single government alone nor the coalition of all can hope to effectively restrict such a universally encompassing phenomenon as the Internet. In addition, the associations and comparisons made of the Internet to the broadcast media when formulating laws are flawed as is the perceived right to restrict its content. Before cable and satellite television brought effective child protection techniques within a click or two for parents, children could access the network television stations at will, and censorship was widely accepted as a necessary governmental responsibility. However, Internet access is not as universally accessible in the same way radio airwaves are. A person does not accidentally look up a Web site the way they might accidentally hear something on network television or radio. (Pilon, 1994).
Federal Interventions
No law regarding internet indecency passes constitutional inspection no matter how vigilantly crafted or well-intended. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (“Olmstead”, 1928). The term indecent is vague, confusing, and destined for continual debate and evolution. Local judiciaries that try to define it and build moral parameters excluding what is currently perceived indecent from a source based on a worldwide scale is impossible and unwarranted. The biggest casualty to free speech is the individual citizen’s right to make moral decisions and be able to speak freely to others in all regions of the globe. The CDA cannot legitimately allege any jurisdiction over the Internet as it might the broadcast media because the software has enabled controlled access to minors. Most Internet service providers offer inexpensive or free access to child protection filters. Just as the government was publicizing the possibilities of the information superhighway, it was also moving to censor it. The Internet, at least for a short time, had provided many peoples of the world, including the U.S., genuine freedom of speech. About the time the internet became widely popular, the U.S. Senate voted for an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Weingarten, 1996) which would have made it unlawful to produce indecent material on any computer network (Corn-Revere, 1997). The House offered its amendment encouraging private solutions to the problem of indecency to counteract the censorship attempts approved by the Senate. A compromise that restricted speech considered ‘harmful to minors’ was worked out between the houses of congress. Under the bill, “sexual imagery on private computer networks would be governed by a standard like that usually used for public display of print media. House conferees, however, again with little discussion, substituted broader language regulating ‘indecent’ material” (Weingarten, 1996, p. 68). This language was enacted into law along with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and became integrated into the CDA.
Communicating via the computer allows everyone to create any type of subject matter and to distribute it instantly on a global scale. This remarkable progression in the ‘marketplace of ideas is a result of the ease of access to the author. Laws that increase regulations and their associated costs to the common webmaster jeopardize this developing modernization and globalization of public dialogue. The CDA will add to the cost of internet speech which, in effect, prohibits the freedom of speech. Government cannot legitimize exercising control over internet content that its users can control.
FCC and Ethics
The FCC has yet to shape a rational and consistent standard defining broadcast indecency. According to the FCC’s broad definition, indecency in the broadcast media is ascertained according to the discernment of the ‘average broadcast viewer’ but this is a meaningless concept. The tastes of the average viewer in Nebraska hardly correlate to the tastes of the average viewer in Las Vegas. In other words, the FCC determines what is indecent. The crafters of the CDA were influenced by legal precedence regarding FCC broadcast interpretations to craft its indecency standard. “It is possible for any court to string together words in an important-sounding way, crafting phrases such as ‘prurient interest,’ or a mythical national consensus, and claim to have created a uniform definition of indecency. What it will have done, in effect, is to impose its tastes on the rest of the nation.” (Huber et al, 1996, p. 385). The CDA’s version is no clearer than the FCC’s definition of indecency and applies similar reasoning to a different set of circumstances.
Conclusion
The Internet, as discussed, is not the same form of communication as the broadcast media. No court – whether federal, state, or local – can clarify or fully rationalize this Act that suppresses the freedom of speech on the internet by referring to a theoretical ‘average’ computer user. If the First Amendment protected only speech that was acceptable to the ‘average’ person, it would be rendered useless as it would not protect unpopular minority opinion which is not as the founders of the country intended. The Internet is a much different form of communication than broadcast media outlets as it enables an exceptional range of people from varied communities to voice their opinions and share their knowledge. The indecency judgments of the ‘average’ user are not simply difficult to distinguish but should be of no significance. If FCC regulations are meant to address the definition of indecency regarding the broadcast media to determine the future of internet communications, the damage to the truly free speech it has fostered will be severe. “Works of considerable literary, scientific, and artistic merit might be ‘patently offensive.’ In some contexts, ordinary cuss words might be considered indecent” (Huber et al, 1996, p. 385). To censure or prohibit free speech on the Internet is a violation of law, the highest law, the Constitution of the United States. That is the true ethical concern of the World Wide Web.
Works Cited
Corn-Revere, Robert. “New Age Comstockery: Exon vs. the Internet.” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 232. (1995).
Huber, Peter W.; Kellogg, Michael K.; & Thorne, John. “Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference.” Special Report: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., (1996), p. 385.
Pilon, Roger. “A Modest Proposal on ‘Must-Carry’, the 1992 Cable Act, and Regulation Generally: Go Back to Basics.” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law. (1994). Journal 41.
Mason, Jeffrey D. “Mason Miller v. California (1973): The Court Confronts Obscenity.” The Millennium Fool. (2000).
“Olmstead v. the United States.” Decided 1928. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. Web.
Weingarten, Fred W. “Debate over Indecency on the Net Reveals Deep Divisions.” Computer Magazine. (1996), pp. 68, 73.
Freedom of speech is synonymous with freedom of expression. These two terms do not only explain the ability to speak or voice opinions without limitation or interference, but also the use of other means in communicating or impacting information.
This includes the use of expressions, music and art like painting, photography, and performing. In many countries, this freedom is provided for in as a basic freedom. Under the Universal Declaration of human rights in the United Nations there is a provision for this freedom. There are many genuine reasons why free speech is an important freedom.
Reasons
Expressing oneself is a basic and important aspect of life and is also part of the basis for communication; it is more instinctive than learned. Throughout childhood and life, freedom of speech supports the learning of an individual through the acquisition of new views, ideas, concepts and theories in scientific, social and other fields of education.
One is able to participate in healthy debates and discussions, learn how to win and persuade in arguments and tolerate or even accept other people’s perceptions and ways of thinking. When an individual is able to express their ideas and opinions, it enables them to relate with others, participate in and enjoy interaction and bonding with other members of a group, team and community.
The main importance of speech learning and development is to facilitate expression and help an individual to live in harmony with other people in society, making sure that there needs are met and their rights, values and principles are not violated. Limiting or interfering with the freedom to speak and express oneself is a big violation of the basic rights of an individual and it restrains an individual from living a normal, productive and independent life.
Freedom of speech is an important aspect of social life in a civilized and democratic society. It enables people to make decisions on their rulers, systems of development and administration and initiate debates and discussions on important issues that concern public policy and governance.
People can voice their concerns over any problems or issues on accountability, responsibility and transparency of leadership. Freedom of speech is essential in the maintaining of law and order and making sure that there are checks and balances on individuals or groups which violate the law.
Although there has been debate on the justification of freedom of speech, it is important to realize that society cannot develop or advance when imparting of and access to information is impeded. In some instances privacy, control and protection of information is required but this does not mean that information should be completely barred from the public.
Freedom of expression is also important where social and cultural issues are concerned. When people are at liberty to express their opinions on critical issues concerning social values, norms and standards, social harmony and order is achieved.
In order to facilitate effective change which is inevitable, sensitive Issues concerning social life, like abortion, aesthesia, divorce, parenting, marriage etc. should be open to debate whether there is consensus or not. It is obviously clear that not all forms and means of freedom of expression that supported and defended but in order to prevent social tension and chaos people should be free to speak.
Conclusion
There are many reasons why free speech is an important freedom. Most societies agree that there should be clearly set guarantees on protecting and defending of this freedom without very little limitation except when it is very necessary and there has been general consensus on taking action against disbursement of information.
The freedom of speech or the freedom of expression is a civil right legally protected by many constitutions, including that of the United States, in the First Amendment. Free speech guarantees that citizens have the right to express their ideas, opinions, agreement, and disagreement in writing, speaking, or any other form of expression such as paintings, photos, music, or more (Stone, 2014). This right can be used by citizens to express their disapproval of the government’s actions or specific policies or more. Furthermore, “freedom of expression is a fundamental right in modern societies,” not only concerning opinions but also allowing citizens to share information without the involvement of public authorities (Hugelier, 2011, p. 61). The complex concept of freedom of speech also includes the right to know, to seek information, and to share or exchange ideas (Hugelier, 2011). Although, as mentioned, freedom of speech is guaranteed by many constitutions of first-world countries, this right remains an issue in international relations since it can be limited or even restricted by governments.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
Restrictions on the freedom of speech have led to international conflicts and disagreements. For example, an Egyptian dissident, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, was sentenced to two years in prison for criticism of the Egyptian government and became an exile but returned as Mubarak fell (Rugh, 2012). American–Egyptian relationships have changed since then, Rugh (2012) states, pointing out that the change was possible due to the political revolution that happened after the uprising and Mubarak’s resignation. The authoritarian rule of the former Egyptian president complicated US–Egypt relationships and led to protests all over Egypt. Although Rugh (2012) acknowledges that the role of the United States in these events was “quiet,” he also points out that the civil protests helped the country end Mubarak’s regime. A lack of freedom of speech was one of the main reasons the uprising began. As demonstrated, this freedom or its lack can affect both internal and external relationships in a country.
Another side of these restrictions involves online communication and the Internet. The Internet and social media were actively used during the Arab Spring, which led to blocked or severely restricted access to online services during certain political moments (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012). The government restricted access to the social media of other countries (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), resulting in outbursts of indignation from both citizens and legal representatives of other nations. Although other countries, the United States and the UK among them, did not approve the restrictions, it should be noted that the same countries either restricted or proposed to restrict Internet access or cell phone services if needed. For example, “the Bay Area Rapid Transit System” canceled cell phone service at four stations in San Francisco to disrupt a planned protest (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012, p. 344). Thus, although freedom of speech is guaranteed by most constitutions, the approach to it can change depending on the political situation in the country.
The freedom of speech and control of Internet access are intertwined. Deibert and Crete-Nishihata (2012) point out that states interested in Internet control can create coalitions to work on specific policies that will limit Internet access or restrict available information. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional organization, created by China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012), focuses on Internet security policies; some of those are used “against international norms of democracy and regime change” (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012, p. 348). Moreover, the SCO also conducts military missions that appear to be simulations of reversing popular uprisings (Deibert & Crete-Nishihata, 2012). Therefore, differences in approach to the freedom of speech can lead to real conflict—possibly armed—between states.
Censorship is sometimes seen as a violation of the freedom of speech. However, there are two different types of censorship: One bans information that can be disturbing or insulting, while the other focuses on opinions, criticism, and disagreement with official actions of the government or official government representatives.
Some states use censorship to prevent any collective actions, as it was in Egypt and Turkey and still is in Russia and China. Despite the fact that China uses censorship to target any opinions that include criticism of the state, King, Pan, and Roberts (2013) argue that the aim of such censorship is not to suppress criticism of the Party per se but to ensure that no collective action can be taken and formed via social media. Although it may appear that such an approach is more common in countries with authoritarian regimes, the United States has engaged another tool to control and gather information about its citizens, namely, security policies and surveillance. As Bauman et al. (2014) note, state surveillance is a direct threat to the freedom of speech since any citizen subjected to mass surveillance cannot freely express himself or herself. The freedom of speech, although seen as “the norm” in international relations, is violated the moment the state needs additional control of a situation or any information about a specific subject.
Freedom of Speech: Is It Real?
The problem of limited freedom of speech is tightly linked to the issue of official secrecy: Snowden’s case showed that any sensitive information related to the government and published without its permission is not considered to be protected under freedom of speech. Thus, the freedom of speech, if completely unlimited, has the potential to adversely influence international relationships or even lead to conflict because of dispersed information that is supposed to be secret. National security and public safety can be at risk if particular pieces of information are published, which is why they are often not governed by the same laws that guarantee freedom of speech (Stone, 2014). The problem is that such terms as “national security” and “public safety” are not stated in detail, and this allows states to use related laws according to their own plans and actions. Stone (2014) provides an example: Although the Official Secrets Act of 1911 was passed because of the activities of foreign agents, the word “sabotage” used in the legislation could cover a broad range of activities—any that could be more or less seen as sabotage.
Another problem is that this legislation does not concern “official” information only but any information that “could be useful for an enemy” (Stone, 2014, p. 302). As can be seen, although a citizen does have the right to express his or her opinion freely, as well as share information, the limits of this freedom, depending on the state, its relations with other states, its involvement in any conflicts, the type of information the citizen shares, and the person who receives this information. Freedom of speech is not a concept that exists independently from international relations but is defined by those and vice versa. The poem What Must Be Said by German writer Günter Grass serves as an example of this concept; this written work was marked as controversial and led to serious debates in and outside of Germany. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that after the publication of this poem, Grass would become a persona non grata in Israel (Horn, 2012). Although the writer posted the poem because of his right to express himself freely as guaranteed by the German constitution, his action also led to particular complexities in Israel–Germany relationships.
Another example of how freedom of speech is defined by and influences international relationships is the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. After Rushdie’s controversial book The Satanic Verses was published, Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared that the assassination of Rushdie would be supported officially. Since Salman Rushdie is a British-Indian writer, such statements “caused the UK to sever diplomatic relations with Iran for nearly a decade” (Cain, 2016, para. 3). Furthermore, the author also lived “under UK police protection” after the fatwa was declared (Cain, 2016, para. 5). The conflict between various definitions, statements made, and information disclosed can often lead to worsened diplomatic relations between countries. The lack of a clear definition leads to misunderstandings that cause conflicts in international relationships.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is a human right that is guaranteed by the majority of modern constitutions. Nevertheless, any state can limit this freedom if it feels the need to address a specific political event or criticism or wants to have control over information and the citizens of the state. Freedom of speech can lead to international conflicts and even wars, especially if the definition of the concept is different for different states. At the same time, although freedom of speech is seen as an international norm, states have necessary tools such as mass surveillance or censorship programs that limit individuals’ rights in this area. This norm has the potential to either improve or worsen diplomatic relations, cease or cause conflicts, and even lead to or prevent uprisings that might or might not be supported by other states.
References
Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., & Walker, R. B. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121-144.
Deibert, R. J., & Crete-Nishihata, M. (2012). Global governance and the spread of cyberspace controls. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 18(3), 339-361.
Hugelier, S. (2011). Freedom of expression and transparency: Two sides of one coin. Jura Falconis Jg., 47(1), 61-92.
King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 326-343.
Rugh, W. A. (2012). Egyptian politics and American diplomacy. Middle East Policy, 19(2), 36-48.
Stone, R. (2014). Textbook on civil liberties and human rights. London, England: OUP.
In the developed societies of the modern world, it is one of the major premises that freedom of expression is the pivotal character of liberal democracy. A democratic government must guarantee the right to question and debate the merits and flaws of policies, politicians, and any other political- or social-related issues without being subject to prosecution. Open discourse and open statement of a personal point of view on any topic whatsoever is the essential aspect of personal freedom and autonomy (Roach and Schneiderman 266).
Section 2 of the Constitution Act 1982 states that each person has a number of fundamental freedoms concerning the ability to state his/her personal viewpoint, which include the freedom of opinion, thought, belief, and expression. This right also presupposes freedom of all the existing types of media (Roach and Schneiderman 266). However, there exist certain limitations that become evident when one takes a closer look.
Section 1 of the same Act claims that even fundamental freedoms must have their restrictions even if they do not violate other people’s rights. This means that practically any utterance may be considered unconstitutional (Knott par. 5). Thus, the paper at hand states that despite the alleged freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the country, the nature of this freedom is rather ambiguous as any type of intellectual or artistic expression may be subject to legal prosecution. The research performed is based on the review of literature highlighting different domains that have to deal with censorship.
The ultimate goal of the study is to prove that though the right for freedom of speech is nominally present in Canada, its actual administration proves to be ineffective, which puts the country far behind the principles promoted by democracy.
Legal limits on Speech
The criminal legislation of the country puts certain legal limits on speech. They are connected with such wrongdoings as treason, blasphemy, religious worship disruption, falsification of information, obscene vocabulary, and many others (Moon 80). The major law dealing with these issues is called Libel and Defamation law.
Libel refers to slander recorded in various types of publication whereas defamation concerns the right of an individual to receive moral compensation in case of publication of the text that damages his/her personal dignity and reputation. The law seems to be reasonable as it provides regulations necessary for the media that can sometimes resort to libel in order to attract larger audiences. However, the government went much further than protecting the right of individuals to be treated with due respect and avoid slandering (Roach and Schneiderman 266).
Mass Media Censorship: Control Institutions
Censorship in its different forms is basically an indicator of a controlled, restrictive environment. In the country where the media ceased to reflect the needs, values, and ideas of the society, it becomes inevitable to introduce restrictions on the range of opinions, behaviors, and attitudes that can be expressed freely (Roach and Schneiderman 267). The ambiguity of this regulation becomes evident with the realization that two freedoms clash in case of mass media: the individual right of journalists for self-expression and the public right for selecting the information that the audience wants to be covered in the press, on radio, or on TV. Therefore, the protection of one party undermines the rights of the other one (Roach and Schneiderman 266).
In Canada, there exist agencies that have a mission to control and modify the content of the media according to the preferences of the government eliminating the information that seems to be questionable, provoking, or clearly hazardous. It is believed that such regulation is required in cases when the media cannot control themselves intrinsically. However, some of the newspapers, magazines, and TV channels opt for self-regulation in order to prevent interference on behalf of higher authorities (e.g. the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, etc.).
Despite this initiative, all the information channels are controlled by the government: the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunication Commission has to check all the advertisement texts; the Liquor License Board releases lists of alcohol products that can be mentioned in the press and on TV; the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children regulates what all the visual information that is intended for the audience under 18 (Véronneau 53).
Thus, it is clear that creating an illusion of freedom and self-control, the government actually regulates all the information reaching a large audience regardless of age.
Books, Television, and Internet
The freedom of speech in Canada is also limited through a number of restrictions imposed on books, television, and the Internet. Books that contain obscene language, sexually explicit episodes (especially those involving people of the same sex), provocative anti-religious texts (as well as books targeting some other religions as being inferior to Christianity), and many other books can be banned under the criminal code (Normey 39).
As far as television programs are concerned, the rules are basically the same. Canadian government actively promotes the idea of racial tolerance, political correctness, diversity, etc. Despite the fact that such an approach is essential for being open-minded, this cannot help telling on the freedom of expression. The paradox is that the government is so much focused on satisfying the needs of various minority groups that it actually starts discriminating against the general population depriving people of their right to expression. A recent example of this is the case with comedian Mike Ward who has been forced to pay moral damages to a boy-singer with disabilities and his mother because he made the boy a target for his jokes on a TV show (Lilley par. 1).
The Internet, which is now the major source of information on various topics, is also subjected to regulations as it is often associated with irresponsible speeches, promotion of violence, heated political arguments, and other factors that may present danger. Besides, the Internet also brings concerns about the piracy that violates copyright law (Normey 39). It is much more difficult for the government to justify restrictions on the Internet but, nevertheless, there are laws against hate messages that allow providers to shut down the site.
Moreover, sites with extremist information can also be eliminated legally. The Internet is also closely bound with the issue of pornography that is challenging and dubious for everyone who adheres to the freedom of expression as opposed to those who protect children’s rights. There is a lot of debate on the restrictions of different types of pornography – therefore, the issue still remains unresolved (Normey 42).
Thus, it would be fair to conclude that not only mass media but all other sources of information are regulated by the Canadian government through a number of various restrictions, which makes it hard to claim that there is any freedom of expression whatsoever.
Hate Speech Regulation
Besides the internal limitations imposed on the freedom of speech, Canada is obliged under international law to struggle against hate speech that may provoke violence, discrimination, and civil commotion. The Criminal Code contains hate speech laws at the federal level, and human rights legislation regulates the issue at the provincial level. There exist two basic directives that allow recognizing hate speech:
it must be found out whether a side observer would consider the expression as hatred-provoking or aggressive;
the term must be analyzed in order to identify whether it bears a strong negative connotation.
However, even these instructions do not help to reduce the number of possible interpretations (Moon 84).
As a result of hate speech laws, a lot of disputes arise on the issue of free expression of negative attitudes in arguments. There is no clear demarcation line between normal conflict within the boundaries of self-expression right and hatred kindling. The latter is often an exaggeration that is made by the regulating bodies in order to stay on the safe side.
Conclusion
As compared to the USA and other developed democracies that can demonstrate successful experiences of promoting the freedom of speech, Canada is still lagging far behind (Bloomberg par. 2). The problem is that the ostensible rights granted by the Constitution to various social institutions are either not administered in practice or restricted by a number of laws that have a common aim to reduce the number of freedoms to the possible minimum. It turns out that the government, which pursues noble purposes of eliminating violence, intolerance, discrimination, and hatred, in fact, kindles aggression in those, whose rights are violated. Thus, the ambiguous nature of such a policy undermines the democratic principles promoted by the state authority.
Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow classmates and fellow citizens at large, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It is an awesome opportunity for me to talk about an issue as serious as the First Amendment in the greatest constitution of all time, the constitution of our country, the United States of America.
Our founding fathers made sacrifices and did us proud by bequeathing us a stable and sound constitution. Thomas Jefferson, in his contribution to the American peoples, ensured that there were various protection rights for the citizens, and one of the greatest that he ensured was enshrined in our constitution was the First Amendment which protected free speech and free religious exercise. (Tom Head)
According to the constitution, the First Amendment is part of the United States Bill of rights that was put in place due to the advocation of the anti-federalists who wanted the powers of the federal government to be minimized, and it states that,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Tom Head)
The First Amendment, therefore, effectively protects the right to freedom of speech and religion, but there are exceptions to this, situations where the freedom of speech may be curtailed and include obscenity cases, child pornography, control of commercial speech, cases of copyright and property rights. It is against this background of the possibility of limiting freedom of speech that Newt bases his argument on, and the reason most relevant for his case is a restriction of speech for protection against possible violence against innocent people, ban on hate speech, and defamation. (Wikipedia).
All these generally contribute to terrorism or are tools used by terrorists. Newt is not interested in the limitation of freedom of speech for the sake of it but is only interested in its application against the terrorists. By the time the First Amendment was drafted, the terrorism cases were not as serious as they are currently, and that is why it is necessary to look at the matter more seriously. The main concern of this limitation on freedom of speech is how it will be implemented and the innocent people it will affect.
In the constitution, the government is allowed to control the content of free speech in some circumstances which are justifiable and for the good of the citizens. According to Justice Murphy, freedom of speech cannot be unlimited all the time in all situations; there are some kinds of speech which when punished, is not viewed as a violation of the provisions of the constitution, especially those which, when pronounced, result into injury and cause a violation of peace. (FindLaw). These are referred to as fighting words. Terrorist communication acts fall within this category. According to Newt, their use of words is just as effective in instilling fear and panic as using weapons; they still achieve their objectives and should not be protected by the constitution in this. (New Gingrich, 2006).
The only constant thing in life is change, everything changes, and we have a big problem of terrorism, and that is why I said and still insist that desperate situations call for desperate measures. If, by any chance, the limitation of freedom of speech may be used to help solve the problem of terrorism for the greater benefit of the American people and even other people in other countries, then why not make the sacrifice for the greater good of mankind? Thank you.
References
FindLaw. U.S. Constitution: First Amendment. Government Restraint of Content of Expression. Web.
Newt Gingrich.The 1st Amendment Is Not a Suicide Pact: Blocking the Speech That Calls for Our Death. 2006. Web.
In the present-day world, the progress of society largely depends on the possibility for people to exercise their fundamental rights. It means that the majority of arising collective issues, which require cooperation for their efficient resolution, can be addressed only if citizens manage to coordinate their actions. From this perspective, freedom of speech is the key to everyone’s well-being, and, in my opinion, it is the most critical condition for self-expression.
Main body
The selection of this aspect as the most valuable part of the societal experience can be explained by its effects on both communities and individuals. In the former case, groups of people can work productively only if they are capable of clearly articulating their messages. This provision can be respected only if everyone can speak their minds without worrying about the public response. It is evident that it can be quite negative, but this method is the only optimal way to find a compromise, which is especially crucial when it comes to essential political decisions. In turn, personal well-being can also be achieved when individuals are free to share their ideas regardless of any restrictions and the risks of meeting resistance from those with opposing views. In this situation, their mental health depends on feelings of unity, which are caused by such an open exchange of thoughts. Thus, the failure to meet this need would indicate the presence of problems with socialization in general.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I appreciate the freedom of speech the most because it is a guarantee of societal progress and individual success in life. The former means that people can better coordinate their decisions when they are openly discussed, whereas the latter implies the opportunity to feel oneness in a group setting. Therefore, this condition is critical for ensuring citizens’ well-being in any context while promoting their collaboration.
Modern society perceives social networks as a place where you can openly broadcast your thoughts without breaking the law. However, there is an important nuance, which is expressed in the fact that freedom of speech on such sites exists as long as a person does not begin to tell the “inconvenient truth.” This phenomenon is not typical for any particular region or society, it happens the same way in the USA and Russia, Europe, and other countries. An Internet user can be accused of racism, discrimination, anti-Semitism, and other things. Social networks do not have the necessary freedom of speech, and empowering people to publish the content seems to be a difficult process.
Why Cannot People Have Freedom of Speech on Social Networks
The phenomenon of “freedom of speech” has always had its limits. The right to freedom of speech does not mean that a person can demand, for example, that the church respect atheists and vice versa. It is right to say that there was no Holocaust and not get a negative response. The recent case of blocking the accounts of former US President Donald Trump on Twitter and Facebook is explained by the violation of the rules and conditions of social platforms (Ross and Caldwell 6). However, Trump is no different from people who demand respect from the church and atheists; his blocking occurred because the equivalent of the Holocaust cancellation.
Any social network and its users can block or close comments to their content if they consider it offensive or violating the rules. If this does not happen, it can be considered the equivalent of respect for atheists and the church. The media space is a complex matter wherein a person will feel unsafe in any case (Al Khouri). In Russia, a person can send to prison for reposting on Twitter where they do not respect the current government. In France, a person can be beheaded for a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad on Instagram. The owner’s store could be demolished in the USA if he disrespected black people by posting on Facebook.
Why is It Difficult to Find a Compromise Option?
If people want freedom of speech on social platforms, their solution is to create a “public” platform. While social platforms are privately owned, their owners dictate the rules of behavior and block them for non-compliance (Chetty and Alathur 3). Returning to Trump, it can be noted that his followers demand neutrality on social platforms; however, they oppose the idea of public platforms (Ross and Caldwell 9). The policy of double standards significantly complicates the search for consensus on the issue of freedom of speech.
If the platforms are controlled not by private owners but by the state, this can lead to even greater evil, such as the VKontakte social network, which is completely controlled by state structures. Control should take place on the part of the users themselves, who can file a complaint about tweets or posts that hurt their feelings. A special commission consisting of professional and independent analysts will decide the legality of the charges against users. It is one of the main and most effective ways to make freedom of speech real in social networks.
Conclusion
To sum up, the policy of social networks should be stricter in dealing with complaints about content and making fair decisions. It is impossible to achieve freedom of speech in full, but it is quite realistic to create conditions for eco-friendly statements on social platforms that will not hurt other people’s feelings. Twitter has made progress in this regard; however, there are still strict limits on permitted content on other platforms. Social networks need to form a single space for free speech and digital content to allow users to feel freedom.
Chetty, Naganna, and Sreejith Alathur. “Hate speech review in the context of online social networks.” Aggression and violent behavior, vol. 40 no. 1, 2018. pp. 1-21.
Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell. “Going Negative: An Appraisal Analysis of the Rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language & communication, vol. 70 no. 1, 2020. pp. 1-15.