People’s freedom of expression refers to their ability to express themselves and take positions on other people’s views without fear of retaliation from others. In addition, freedom of expression is an entitlement protected through the first constitutional amendment (Maris, 2018). Restricting or penalizing freedom of expression is thus a negative issue because it confines the population of truth, as well as rationality, questioning, and the ability of people to think independently and express their thoughts (Chetty & Alathur, 2018). The main research question is to determine whether punishing free expression is despotic and should not be encouraged in any case or at any time, irrespective of whether it offends others. As for me, freedom of speech should be upheld as long as it does not infringe upon the basic human rights of others.
The freedom to express and post opinions, as an essential augmentation of the liberty to think and feel, is a fundamental component of human liberty. Posting opinions as part of the inward domain of consciousness cannot harm others. Maris acknowledges that free speech may impact others, but it is nearly indistinguishable from it, being almost as important as freedom of thought and based on similar grounds (2018). However, for the citizenry to have unrestricted freedom of expression, the population must first understand the difference between freedom of expression and oppression and intolerance. Such understanding is essential because numerous people use their right to free expression to offend, prejudice, and hide their hatred of certain groups of people. Abuse of freedom of speech is detrimental and adds nothing positive to the world (Maris, 2018). As a result, one can conclude that penalizing freedom of expression harms the population; however, the population must understand the difference between opinion, hate speech, and intolerance.
The article made me perceive the position of absolute freedom of speech in the Internet media from a dual perspective. Blind posting is a phenomenon that can only emerge in the age of internet anonymity and messaging boards. Blind posts, as a result, gain meaning not only as obscene and frivolous comments left by anonymous people, but also as comments that are blind in the sense of insensitivity. In fact, insensitivity on the Internet and its manifestation take away attention from valuable takes because their scandalousness is incapable of not focusing attention on itself. Therefore, media outlets should moderate posts on the basis of meaningfulness and ethics, and remove them if they obviously speculate on the tragedy. This desire for quick attention is the creation of information noise, distracting from the user to form their own and independent opinion based on a comparison of various theses.
Anonymity is a way to ensure freedom of expression and should therefore be preserved. At the same time, people using their own name can receive additional privileges allowing their posts to be more visible. For example, this can be achieved by authorizing legal usernames using a checkmark. The “cheap shots” that the author is writing about really prove to be an effective way to destroy any serious discussion on the Internet (Dyer, 2009). However, this does not mean that comments in the media should be closed, rather, they should be edited according to the principle of combating extremism. Comments under the news are a way to see a real cross section of public opinion and show multiple perspectives on one situation. This multiplicity of viewpoints highlights the importance of democratic discussion, but its quality should not be polluted by posts that are outright trolling and demand negative attention.
Freedom of speech is the liberty granted to individuals to express themselves freely without any censorship. However, the very rights are subjected to certain limitations such as slander, libel, incitement, obscenity and an intention to commit crime. The discussion on Phoenix pastor who is wishing that President Obama would be dead provides a concise example on the practicality of religious tolerance and freedom of speech.
It is profound to underscore the fact that both the Phoenix pastor and President Obama have express right to freedom of expression as stipulated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 19. Therefore, the pastor has the right to freely express himself and he should not be censored on the same ground.
As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should not be criticized on the basis that he made the remark against the president of United States of America. On the other hand, the pastor had no right to censor Obama bearing in mind that every individual has the right to exercise his or her freedom of expression.
However, due to the fact that the pastor used discriminatory remarks that could result into incitement and hate speech, it can be argued that he was not justified at all by wishing for the death of Obama. As a matter of fact, even though freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to all individual, it may not be good taste to openly make such remarks in public both from religious and political points of view.
Furthermore, it is prudent to observe that no single religious code of ethics or principles would permit such utterances at any given time largely due to the fact that it does not promote peaceful co-existence among people, the latter being a core value in religion. Therefore, the Phoenix pastor is unjustified. We can also argue that to some extent, he abused the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious tolerance as laid down in the United States constitution (Ontario consultants on religious tolerance par. 1).
In a more critical analysis, the pastor is wrong because there should be a sensible balance when exercising freedom of speech, freedom of religion bearing in mind that religious tolerance should be firmly in place regardless of faith one professes to. In addition, religious freedom of an individual has no impact on the freedom of speech of another person.
Therefore, even though the pastor has the right to exercise his religious freedom, he has no right to interfere with the freedom of Obama in any way. The pastor had no authority or constitutional right to incite his congregation against the United States President even though the latter had commented and apparently gave a nod to contentious debate surrounding abortion.
Moreover, there is need to censor speech on religious issues because individuals have different faiths and hold varying views on certain religious aspects. As a result, the comment made by the pastor was wrong on the basis that he did not merge his religious difference with that of Obama in a tolerant manner but instead tried to suppress the discourse of the speaker. Hence, it was erroneous for him to condemn Obama and wish for his death because he too has the right to speech and religious freedom (Anon par 4).
In a more vivid way, it is also prudent to mention that the very constitution protects the rights of every individual regardless of their political or economic backgrounds. As a president, Obama is also protected by the very constitution irrespective of his religious affiliation or personal take on some matters. If such level of condemnation is permitted in our society and especially at the level of religion, then it may be a real recipe for religious conflicts.
The former United States President, Bill Clinton, once asserted that the best way to practice religious freedom is to use legal mechanisms to protect individuals against hate crimes and discriminations. Hence, on this basis, the pastor was wrong even though he has the right to exercise both freedom of speech and religion, he has failed to observe religious tolerance by spreading hate crimes against Obama and other individuals who may want to express themselves freely.
Furthermore, the pastor did not observe the freedom of religion when he criticized and wished Obama’s death since he abused the anti-defamation policy. Moreover, his criticism was merely as a result of discrimination on the basis that he believed certain religious group support abortion and for Obama, it was not an exception.
Worse still, the pastor failed to put into consideration that religious freedom is the founding principle in United States of America. Hence, he was wrong to remark that president Obama was abusing Christian faith and therefore deserve death. He further failed to honor religious tolerance in the United States of America when he made his speech (Ontario consultants on religious tolerance par 7).
Consequently, the pastor failed to use religion accordingly when he criticized Obama publicly. Religious freedom and freedom of speech should be used for purposes of uniting a nation, securing basic human rights and cultivating prosperity. In addition, the pastor demonstrated his authoritative regime by repressing the members of his congregation and their general ideas in the pretext of creating an environment that will deny them the freedom of speech and religion.
Additionally, his arbitrary and coercive interference in peaceful Christian religion could possibly result into Christians or specifically members of his congregation becoming more resistant towards Obama’s government. His remarks could possibly result into insurgency and separatism of certain religions from the state.
Furthermore, his remark could highly likely result into negative worsening international relations because he linked extremism with certain religious groups. His remark against Obama was a clear indication that he was trying to widen up the existing divide among religious organizations or groups. Moreover, his speech failed to put into consideration the importance of building common concerns and shared values of religious faith to establish foundations of everlasting peace instead of spreading hate speech against certain individuals.
In summing up, it is vital to reiterate that every individual has the right to speech and no religion should be constitutionally supersede the others.
The fact that President Obama did not use his belief system and freedom of speech to cross into immorality by justifying hatred and intolerance, the pastor had no right or moral standing to spread hate speech against him since anyone who supports religious intolerance becomes a minor among the believers and clergymen. The protests against the Phoenix pastor are a clear indication that he was indeed wrong in his assertion.
Works Cited
Anon. Phoenix Pastor Draws Protests after Telling Church He Prays for Obama’s Death. 2009. Web.
Ontario consultants on religious tolerance. Religious tolerance: Abortions access all sides of the issue. 2010. Web.
Freedom of speech is a human right that is very essential and entails the expression of ideas and opinions freely hence promoting peace and order in a country or even an institution as people feel represented and honored. It is through the expression of opinions that invention and innovation is nurtured and hence there is growth and development.
Freedom of speech enhances free flow of information and ideas hence promoting democracy, creativity and growth. Political reform on the other hand is a social and political movement that makes gradual changes in the society or country and therefore freedom of speech is necessary in the process of political reform.
Freedom of speech is an essential basic human right and each and every individual is entitled to have it. It should however not be misused under any circumstance but used constructively to promote growth rather than rebellion. The introduction of political reform in China ought to be gradual just as the economic reforms so that it can be easily absorbed without interfering with the functioning and continuity of the state (Cuizon 1).
Background Information
China worked on the principles of a political thinker, Confucius, until the start of the twentieth century. He emphasized on the importance of ethics and morals in all undertakings rather than the use of force and violence to make things done. The importance of human rights like the freedom of speech was however not taken into consideration.
Towards the end of the twentieth century, China became business oriented and there were lots of economic and political reforms under the rule of Deng. He believed that for a nation to progress and develop there had to be enlightened people and so he allowed for more open debate and discussions that would enhance exchange of ideas and opinions that lead to development.
There was great freedom of speech, press and movement but this idea was not received well and some people thought that too much freedom was not necessary and that they should have gone back to the earlier days. This was because although the reforms had led to growth and development, it also brought about inflation leading to peaceful and even violent demonstrations as citizens demanded more democracy (Rana 2).
Although the constitution of China has the provision of the freedom of speech, association, press and even demonstration, the freedom is not there in reality since the constitution forbids the undertaking of anything that is contrary to the interests of the states. The rights are not implemented unless a supplementary law is passed by the national legislature.
There are therefore restrictions to human rights and people who are seen to express and advocate for freedom are punished and prosecuted for the offense of inciting others or trying to undermine the state’s powers. Some face penalties like losing their jobs, detention and rebuke.
Freedom of speech and press are vital concepts in attainment of political reform in China. This is because it enhances decision making in regard to the country’s politics through engaging the citizens in the current social and political affairs.
The involvement of the citizens in the nation’s decision making is fundamental as it makes them feel represented and also prepare the citizens socially on all the changes that are bound to happen in their nation and hence avoid resistance as it could be the case when the changes would occur without their consent or knowledge.
Political reform in China is triggered by the widespread corruption in the nation as there are many instances of abuse of public funds and resources for individual gains. Corruption is exacerbated by the fact that the citizens have got no powers and the state is in control of all the aspects involving the citizens for instance, it possesses power over the legislature, judicial and executive arms of the government, the press or media, colleges and universities and even markets.
Democracy is therefore viewed as a solution to this problem and it can only be introduced through political reform. The idea of democracy is however received with a lot of controversies because in however much the leaders desire to eliminate the aspect of corruption, they have the fear of losing the monopoly power prevalent in the communist party. Even with the realization that something needs to be done, allowing for democracy, the Chinese leaders are still resistant on the need for change (Zhao 3).
It is however evident that the process of establishing democracy in China has been slower that that of capitalism. This is because of the monopoly of power of the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of freedom of speech and press and independent government body. Although China is not a democracy, its view on democratic aspects is changing and there is the possibility of the adoption of democracy as a political system in future (Li Viii).
There have been changes in the China’s political ideology due to the urge to have freedom of speech and democracy and as a result, there have been major political changes and developments for instance there has been the emergence of civil society as opposed to the Mao’s era where there was no chance for formation of any independent civil society.
There has been an increase in formation independent and legitimate civil organizations and associations that give the citizens a medium to air their opinions. The political reform has also led to improved national legal system and promotion of the rule of law. This is because the leaders in China have recognized the need to establish and promote a good legal system to compliment the growing market economy. This promotes democracy in the political system in China.
Local autonomy and direct elections is another concept that was enhanced by political reform in China. Democracy was viewed as a stepping stone to political development and the citizens were allowed to make their leadership decisions by directly voting for or electing their leaders. This enhanced peace and order as the citizens felt comprehensively represented. Political transparency is another key aspect.
The political reform emphasize on openness and transparency in all affairs of the government through involvement of the citizens. The government has the obligation to inform the citizens of the policies and regulations and all the government affairs affecting them comprehensively and at the right time to ensure that they are aware of the events taking place or those that are to take place and voice their opinions.
The National Leading Group on Governmental Transparency promotes this by emphasizing openness in governmental affairs as a legal obligation of the government at al levels, adoption of a service commitment and responsibility investigating system, and establishment of a disaster management system.
Due to consideration of the citizens in the government political affairs, there has been an improvement in public services provision as the government become service oriented. This has been achieved through simplification of the administrative examination and approval system and implementation of one stop shopping service model. Incorporation of public hearings and considerations in decision making is another positive factor brought about by political reform.
This has made use of the public to ensure that the services offered by the government are in line to the needs of the citizens hence satisfaction and contentment that promotes peace and order. Although the political reforms have been associated with major positive results, its main goal is to set up a modern system that promotes democratic governance in the nation and hence recognizing and protecting the citizen’s rights under all circumstances (Li 50).
Freedom of speech and political reform in China are directly related and affect one another. When the citizens are given the freedom of speech, they are able to participate fully in the nation’s development and hence contribute positively to the political reforms.
On the other hand, the leaders may consider restricting the freedom of speech of the citizens so as to exercise monopoly and carry out activities the way they desire. This however cannot succeed as the citizens will be rebellious as they feel neglected. It is therefore advisable to allow democracy and freedom of speech to enhance the process of political reform.
Conclusion
Political reform is a positive step in any country when it follows the right direction and procedures. It should always aim at attaining political legitimacy and promoting social welfare and development. It should also cater for the needs of all citizens especially the marginalized and promote political, social and economic stability in the nation.
Works Cited
Cuizon, Gwendolyn. “What is Freedom of Speech?: Importance of Free Speech.” Suite 101.com. 2009, March 6. Web.
Li, Cheng. China’s Changing Political Landscape: Prospects for Democracy. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
Rana, Mitter. “A Short History of Free Speech in China: New Internationalist.” FindArticles.com, 2010. Web.
Zhao, Suisheng. Debating Political Reform in China: Rule of Law vs. Democratization. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Freedom of speech is the legal right that is given by the constitution to individuals allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without any form of government intervention. It is the freedom of thought where one expresses his thought freely without censorship. Under the freedom of speech, one has the right to say what he pleases and also hearken to the opinions of others.
It is referred as the first freedom as it was the first focus of The First Amendment of the U.S constitution although it is also described in The Fourteenth Amendment. Freedom of speech is one of the most critical concepts of current liberal democracies (Forsythe & McMahon 23). It is considered as the as the freedom above all liberties because it gives one the freedom to know, express and argue consciously without censorship.
Other freedoms make no sense without the freedom of speech. However, the freedom of speech is subject to laws that protect incitement to violence or any form of libel. Freedom of speech is taken as a mean of outlawing government censorship (Haaland 14).
Although the government guarantees the freedom of speech to the citizens, there are some expressions it regards as offensive and punishable by the law. These includes sedation, defamation or making public any matter that is regarded as the secrets of the government (TRF 1). Sedation entails speeches that are directed towards inciting rebellion against the authorities of the government.
This research seeks to ascertain the state of freedom of speech in the Balkans, a region in southern east Europe characterized by geopolitical aspect of power; that is the application of political power in manning a certain territory.
The scope of this research covers only the freedom of speech in the Balkans focusing mainly on some specific countries in the region. Though there is vast violation of freedom of speech in all countries in the Balkans, only five countries are discussed in this research. These include Croatia, Montenegro, Romania Macedonia and Kosovo.
Methodology
In this research, secondary data will be used to gather the information needed. Therefore, there will be no formal research that will be carried out. The secondary data that will be explored will include Articles, journals, books and web pages related to the freedom of speech in the Balkans.
Freedom of speech in the Balkans
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental freedoms that characterize every society that has democratic rights. In most societies, freedom 9of speech is regarded as the first freedom in the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the main characteristics of a democratic society and marks political freedom of such societies. This freedom is taken to mean freedom of thought where one expresses his thought freely.
Banning or denying a person freedom of speech is depriving them of the freedom of expressing their thoughts. Most states do restrict free speech in the name of protecting their well-being. Other governments restrict freedom of speech in order to camouflage their excesses. In the legislation of all the countries in the Balkans, the freedom of speech is considered a human right and should not be denied whatsoever.
In the eight Balkans countries, the freedom of speech was respected as indicated by the US department of state (1) but there are some cases where these rights were infringed. The journalists were threatened by the governments and harassed in some places. According to Nikolovski (1), the jobs journalists in the Balkans are facing a lot of problems in almost all countries.
Governments have been trying to manipulate the media and threatening them whenever they fail to report in favor of their interest. In some countries in the Balkans, journalists have been killed for not reporting in favor of the government.
Freedom of speech in Macedonia
The constitution of Macedonia states that none should be deprived of the freedom of speech but speeches that incites are not allowed (EC 1). The constitution provides that any person especially broadcasters who misuses the freedom of speech by inciting people by his speeches attracts a penalty.
Individuals in Macedonia could initially criticize the government without any penalty but things have changed with time. There are various cases where the government has deprived the citizens of freedom of speech in Macedonia. For instance, journalists disrupted a press conference in 2007 and protested against the harassment they faced in the Macedonian parliament.
The reporter and a cameraman were harassed in parliament and were hindered from carrying out their duties. They were beaten and their tapes were snatched from them thus hindering them from doing their work effectively. Nikolovski stated that “according to the Southeast Europe Media Organization (SEEMO), more than 450 criminal lawsuits involving insult and slander were filed in Macedonia between 2003 and 2005” (Nikolovski 1).
Most of these crimes were done by public officials and many more cases were pending filing. The government influence on media outlets was very rampant in Macedonia. The government was putting a lot of pressure on media outlets and even threatening them that failed to report in its favor.
The government continued to get a lot of criticism because of manipulating the media outlets and the 12 journalists who were charged with slandering were granted amnesty. The Macedonian Radio and Television (MRTV) showed favor to the government in its reporting and it was launched by the government as the only one authorized to report government issues to the public. Many reporters and journalists were charged in courts for slandering and this hampered their performance and denied them independence.
In many cases, the media instruments were stolen during national campaigns in order to restrict the journalists from doing some political reporting. Television transmitters were stolen from the local televisions during these campaigns.
The aim of this act was meant to silence the media so that they fail to communicate information about the elections to the public (Hagan 15). This was criticized by Association of Journalists of Macedonia as a plan to deny the media of the freedom of press. The international community for journalists also condemned the act.
Freedom of speech in Croatia
The case in Croatia was not any difference from Macedonia and the journalists were threatened with death work hampered. The influence of media by the government continued despite the provision by the constitution. The constitution provides that the freedom of speech for individuals and freedom of press of media should be respected.
However, the freedom of speech and press are restricted by the constitution and any misuse is penalized. Hate speech, for instance, is punishable by over six months imprisonment (Rodham 28). Initially, newspapers and magazines enjoyed the freedom of press but the government later started manipulating them.
About 70% of the local media in Croatia was owned by the local government and this was a strategy of the government to win influence over the media. This local media was funded by the local government and therefore it was easier for the government to put financial pressure on them. Many journalists were also arrested and charged in courts with various unfair charges. Most of their equipments were seized by the police as they were directed by the government in order to make their work impossible.
Death threats were also common especially to those reporting on war crime topics. For instance, Nikolovski stated that “On November 27, Drago Hedl, “Jutarnji list” commentator and journalist, received a text message threatening to “massacre” him.” (Nikolovski 1). These threats were meant to silence him and prevent him from reporting unfavorable things about the state.
According to The US Department of State (1), the Croatian Journalists Association (CJA) expressed the concern that the freedom of speech of media in Croatia is greatly affected by the concentration of ownership of the media outlets by the state. The state is having a lot of influence on the media through state owned media outlets.
The local journalists suffered salary reduction on allegations that they criticized the ministers in the government for their behaviors. Workers in the investigative journalism were threatened together with their families and they were told to stop investigative journalism.
Freedom of speech in Montenegro
In Montenegro, the practice of the freedom of speech and press were restricted to some issues by the law. In the country legislation, it is lawful to criticize the government whether publicly or privately and media could do it without being arrested. Later on, the media faced threats and harassments related to their reporting (Ramet 21).
Some of them were killed and others were threatened with death. Many journalists and other media workers were accused of defamation and hate speeches. The media became very ineffective due to these cases and lacked freedom in doing their jobs. The government wins control over media in Montenegro because it owns a big part of print media. The officials in the media were government appointees who could easily be manipulated.
The freedom of speech was therefore jeopardized by government manipulation. In 2000, the media, especially state -run in Montenegro was restricted from reporting the elections in order to prevent the government interests. The constitution had allowed the government -run media to operate as purely public but this has been under criticism that it is the strategy of the government to control the media.
The government had strategies for financing the public broadcaster and this was also criticized that it was an avenue of the government controlling the media. The public broadcaster was also accused of favoring the government in its reporting. This was regarded as misuse of the freedom of speech and press and it raised the concern of the media authorities in the country (Shetreet, 32).
Freedom of speech in Romania
The government of Romania respected the freedom of speech and press but some restrictions grew up with time. The legislation in Romania allowed the persons to criticize the government of any notable malpractice. The government ensured the freedom of speech and press is followed but some laws are still oppressive to the media and raised the concern of the media outlets owners (Rosamond 26).
The law restricts insults and defamation and such cases are charged as criminal cases. Insulting the state is hitherto punishable by imprisonment in Romania. The persons who may be accused of insulting the nati9oknal anthem, flag or even the Court Of Arms would suffer imprisonment stipulated by the law although no such cases have so far been experienced in Romania.
In Romania there were some cases where media was threatened by the government authorities in order for them not to cover some of their excesses. There were also cases where the reporters were assaulted and threatened with death and lawsuits. Independent media initially enjoyed the freedom of press and speech and could express their view with no restrictions. Later on, politicians started owning most of the media outlets in the country, directly or indirectly.
This created an avenue for the politicians controlling the media. The news and editorial tones of these media owned by the politicians were dominated by the views of their owners and not independently their own views (Hammond 18). These politicians and other wealthy people purchased most of the media outlets and their control increased as a result.
The freedom of speech of the journalists was therefore denies because they could only express the thoughts and views of media owners. Journalists who refused to comply with the views of the politicians were insulted and others harassed by the members of the public. The politicians incited the members of the public to harass the journalists who could not obey them.
Reporters were physically assaulted for writing articles criticizing the mischief of some politicians and other wealthy people in the country. Newspapers photographers were also harassed and their cameras confiscated by the bodyguards of some politicians.
The photos were deleted thus making them unable to report effectively. The distributions of some gazette were sometimes banned on allegations that they had false statements about the politicians.
These instances denied the media the freedom of speech and press. Other journalists were publicly insulted by the politicians they reported to the public for their malpractice in the government. There were also cases of media workers losing their jobs and receiving messages of death threats and accused of reporting false statements concerning the government.
Although the media in Romania complains that they are denied the freedom of speech, they should also try not to misuse the freedom. They sometimes reported false statements that got them in to trouble. Romania is one of the countries in the Balkans where the freedom of speech and press were vastly denied.
The government gained control over the media through owning most of the media outlets. According to (Armstrong & Forestier 32), most of the counties constitution does provide for the freedom of speech and press but there are also provisions that are put in place to prevent the misuse of these rights. The government can prevent some reports from reaching the public because they will cause more harm to the country (Oliver 23).
Freedom of speech in Kosovo
Like in most of the other countries in the Balkans, the government of Kosovo respects the practice of the freedom of speech and press. It is in the interest of the country’s constitution to protect the freedom speech and press against denial and misuse.
Although the constitution provides for the freedom of speech and press, the reporters are still facing threats from the officials in the public sector and even the government itself (Rosamond 26).
They are being restricted from reporting on some issues that may genuinely be of public interest. The media face difficulties in getting information related to the government and some public institutions because the government does not want them to report to the public.
The media law in Kosovo does not allow hate speech or speeches that could cause incitement and the perpetrators are punishable by the law. Individuals could initially criticize the government as long as their criticism is free from hate speech. Financial difficulties of media outlets in Kosovo exposed them to external influence especially from the persons or groups that provided with finances.
This influence mostly affected the newspapers that were funded by the politicians and some prominent businessmen. These newspapers could only cover the views of these financiers. All these instances hampered the freedom of speech of the journalists as they could not independently express their thoughts.
Conclusion
In the research discussion above, freedom of speech is described as the legal right that is given by the constitution to individuals allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without any form of government intervention. Freedom of speech has some reasonable restrictions that are punishable by the law. For instance, sedition, defamation or publication of state secrets is prohibited by the law.
The findings of the study of five countries in the Balkans show that the governments respect the freedom of speech as provided for in the constitution. However, there are many instances that the government participated directly in denying the journalists their freedom of speech.
In all the countries studied, the journalists were threatened either with death or lawsuits. In other cases, the journalists were harassed, beaten and their cameras confiscated by politicians. In general, in the Balkans, the freedom of speech is highly violated in almost all countries.
The major challenges and limitations encountered in this research are finding out the most recent information on the topic. It is based on the assumption that the literature materials used are up to date, valid and reliable as per the date they were published.
More research would be needed in order to find out the expected future state of the freedom of speech in the Balkans based on the current situation and also the effects of the current violations on the future political development.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Gail & Forestier, Patricia. Peacekeeping forces remain on the ground in Kosovo. But how were ethnic rivalries inflamed into war in the first place? California: Church of scientology international, 2004. Web.
European Commission (EC). Promotion of Human Rights and Democratization in the EU’s External Relations. Sri Lanka: European Commission (2006).
Forsythe, David P. & McMahon, Patrice C. Human rights and diversity: area studies Revisited. US: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.
Haaland, Janne. Intervention for human rights in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Hagan, John. Justice in the Balkans: prosecuting war crimes in the Hague Tribunal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Hammond, Andrew. The Balkans and the West: constructing the European other, 1945 – 2003. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2004. Web.
Oliver, Ian. War & peace in the Balkans: the diplomacy of conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Middle East: I.B.Tauris, 2005
Ramet, Petra. Explaining the Yugoslav Meltdown, 1; “For a charm of powerful Trouble, like a hell broth boil and bubble: Theories about the Roots of the Yugoslav Troubles. Nationalities Papers: Vol. 32, No 4. December 2004. Carfax, Tayler and Francis Group.
Rodham, Hillary. The state department’s 2008 country reports on human rights Practices. Washington, DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2008.
Shetreet, Shimon. Free speech and national security, Volume 1990. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991 – 236 pages.
The US Department Of State. Report: human rights not fully protected in Balkan Countries. US: SETimes.com, 2008. Web.
Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF). Balkans: Human Rights Lagging. London: Thomson Reuters Foundation, 2010. Web.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution runs, “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” (U.S. Constitution, as cited in Goshgarian, 2011, p. 183). Judging from this, free speech of campus should be an inherent privilege of each student who cares about educational matters. However, questions restricted to the so-called “politically correct” speech have recently come to the forth due to the rise of political view on the campus life in the United States.
On the one hand, proclaiming freedom of speech among students on campus can contradict the firmly fixed values and beliefs accepted in colleges and universities. On the other hand, students should be able to express their opinions about different issues that matter to them. In such a way, they can learn and introduce changes to those questions. In this respect, students should not be limited to expressing themselves as long as their speech is genuine, consistent, and transparent.
Students who join the life on campus consider it reasonable to freely discuss things that concern and appeal to them most of all. In this respect, they can learn about issues that interest them. Discussing things and problems publicly can contribute to recognizing problems within a campus and providing possible solutions to improving quality of education.
Analyzing matters connected to quality of delivering materials by instructors, discussing different learning and teaching techniques, and offering solutions to more effective scheduling of an academic curriculum should not be ignored by college administrators. Even more, this should be the core concern of each university/college.
In this respect, Downs (2006) mentions the philosophy of educational establishments, where “the function of the University is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train student in the process whereby truth is to be made known” (p. 4). Therefore, each college/university should have deep faith in intelligence and knowledge and, therefore, it should be more concerned with the ways to improve transparency of considering questions that gave rise to intellectual development rather than to passionate exposition of beliefs and thoughts.
Restricted expression and limited possibilities for expressing thoughts and ideas does not contribute to developing and improving of norms and values to college activities. Students should openly discuss the issues and identify existing problems, especially when it comes to racial and sexual discrimination. In fact, there should be distinction between passionate and subjective assaults of sexual and racial minorities (Leo, 2011, p. 187).
For instance, explicit debates on sexual and gender oppression will not contradict the existing moral and ethical codes. On the contrary, it introduces clarity and enhances the importance of the critical issue. As an example, Donna Shalala, a counselor of the University of Wisconsin, proved to be a rigorous advocator of speech restrictions on campus. In fact, the established code was quite primitive because it spread nothing, but horror and ignorance among students (Leo, 2011, p. 190).
In this respect, discrimination can be the result of those restrictions because impossibility to explore the roots of the problem can prevent from solving speech problem in a transparent way. In contrast, an overt approach to expressing opinions can bring shifts to solving the challenging problems of racial, social, and gender discrimination. Ignorance of the problem can be the result of prohibition imposed on free speech on campus.
Restriction measures taken by educational establishments can make students fearful of freely expressing their positions and opinions concerning urgent issues. In this respect, many students may find it irrational to be interested in the social and political life on campus because it can have a negative impact on the academic process.
However, students should realize that free speech should not infer the struggle between several political parties, but provide an objective and unbiased representation of their ideological, political, and educational views on life in a college.
However, it is important to note that dishonest and biased representation of thought should be discouraged and controlled to avoid conflicts among students. Both liberal and conservative views should keep aside from students’ rights to express their thoughts and choose which part they should protect (Leo, 2011).
In particular, most importantly, universities should not underestimate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, especially when educators apply to the law for their personal interests. As an example, Leo (2011) provides the case with Reebok, when the University signed a contract, promising not to express negative comments about the quality of footwear. This is the case when restricted freedom of speech negatively influences the policies and welfare of universities in whole.
In conclusion, students should have the right to express themselves freely unless it is a dishonest and subjective assault having no evidence. Students should be able to protect their rights and freedoms and apply to existing tools and laws supporting their positions. Therefore, while expressing themselves, they should be aware of the effects. More importantly, there should be a free speech should be independent of any political party, though students have the right to join either of political wings.
References
Downs, D. A. (2006). Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goshgarian, G. (2011). What Matters in America. Canada: Pearson Education Canada.
Leo, J. (2011). Free Inquiry? Not on Campus. In G. Goshgarian (Ed.), What Matters in America. Canada: Pearson Education Canada, pp. 184-193.
One of the most effective measures that oppressive regimes use the world over is the limitation of the freedom of speech and thoughts. This can also be interpreted to mean the freedom of expression that is sometimes manifested in the press. Autocratic governments stifle the freedom of expression of their citizens and thus create an atmosphere of fear in them. This autocracy is a way of concealing in a very strategic fashion, their evil, both locally and more so internationally.
In an effort to understand why certain states curtail the freedom of speech, it is imperative to appreciate why this freedom is important to the citizens of any country. The first of this is based on the principle of truth. The governance of a state should be founded on the concrete tenets of truth and the respect for it. For democracy to work properly, the freedom of speech should not be limited. Citizens should be allowed to exercise free speech and to be able to perform their social duties effectively.
On a more personal note, the freedom of expression promotes in the people a sense of self-realization. The freedom of speech guarantees that no one should be restrained from exercising it and secondly, no punishment should be meted on the one who exercises it. Restraint can mean the mulling of press freedom, the publication and subsequent dissemination of vital information to the people.
Oppressive governments make laws that control the freedom of speech in its various forms. These laws are stipulated in licenses, censorship agencies, judicial authority on publication through court injunctions, and prohibition of unauthorized advertising of any material. There are, however, instances when the freedom of speech may be controlled or regulated by a government. The freedom of speech can also result in legal consequences or punitive action before or after it is exercised.
This can happen when the freedom is abused to the extent that it causes harm to the public or it negates national interests. This can also happen when it contravenes or endangers national security. It can also be prevented when it is deemed to incite crime or when it is a breach to peace. Obscene language, seditious information, slanderous information, and libel cannot enjoy immunity from either prohibition or punishment (Smith 9).
Having thus understood why freedom of speech is important, it is important to make an analysis of how various regimes across the world control this freedom. The analysis is based on the two ideologies of communism and democracy. We shall see how communism and democracy have a bearing on the freedom of speech. Communism as an establishment is based on a classless society where all citizens are considered equal to a certain extent.
On the one hand, democracy as a system is founded on the rule of the people through elected representatives. In communism, power is vested in a few individuals who provide direction by making key decisions. The few individuals may interfere with the life of the public in a negative manner as we shall see in other sections of this paper. In a democracy, the chosen representatives pursue the will of the people who elect them.
Whatever the representatives do and say should reflect the interests of the people. The two systems of governance are different in terms of their economic order. Communist states exercise absolute control of all resources in terms of their production and subsequent distribution. The national returns are shared equally among the population in a communist state. In a democracy, the rights and freedoms of the people are upheld and protected by the constitution.
In our incisive analysis, we are going to see how the freedom of speech is treated in communist and democratic states. We shall first examine the countries that top the list in terms of the oppression of the freedom of speech and the similarities in their systems of governments. Heading the list is North Korea.
Its system of government is deeply rooted in a Stalinist model of autocratic communism. The freedom of speech is curtailed. All the press which includes radio, television and local newspapers is controlled by the state. Second in this list is Burma. In Burma, the media is state controlled.
The country’s three television channels are controlled by the government and all the media content is assessed before it is disseminated to the public. Content that is considered harmful to the government is then filtered out. Turkmenistan is third in the list. Like the other two countries mentioned earlier, the media in this country is state owned. All content of the media has to be censored by government appointed officials who play the role of editors.
It is interesting to mention that the president’s picture has to feature prominently in the first page of the country’s local Daily in Turkmenistan. Equatorial Guinea is placed a distant fourth.
All media is owned and controlled by the state except a television and a radio channel that is owned by the son of the country’s current president. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was the Arab’s world most oppressive state in terms of the freedom of speech. (Smith 34). The oppression also permeated in all other sectors of the economy precipitating a bloody people’s revolution.
The successful revolution aided by some European countries and the United States not only unseated Colonel Gaddafi from power but led to his death in battle. Eritrea, an African state joins this least as the only country in sub -Saharan Africa that does not have an outlet for private media. All activities of the media in this tiny country located in the Horn of Africa are subject to intensive monitoring by the State’s agencies.
Cuba, a communist state, is another country where the freedom of speech is controlled by the government. The government purports to recognize the freedom of the press but this is only if the freedom is exercised within the interests of the state (Cudd 20). This is indeed a mockery of the freedom of speech. The Communist Party controls all the media and its activities. Internet access is controlled and the government regulates and owns all outlets of the media.
Cuba is second to China as the leading jailer of journalists in the world. In Uzbekistan, the government has put in place leadership structures that resemble those of the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. It is to be remembered that the U.S.S.R was a communist state prior to its disintegration. Among the former republics of the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan has distinguished itself as a leading oppressor of the freedom of speech. Journalists are frequently harassed, and tortured by the police (Guillaumin 27).
Syria under the rule of president Bashar al-Assad has been in the world news for the wrong reasons. In reaction to the oppressive regime of president Bashar, people took to the streets to protest against the rule of president Bashar. The people’s revolt, though protracted was a testament of the misrule in this country. The media in Syria is also is state controlled.
The few private media companies that exist in Syria are owned by conformists and supporters of the regime. Censorship takes the form of licenses which are issued only by the Prime Minister. In Belarus, all the media is state owned. The seating president Aleksandra Lukashenko is usually a subject of praise by the broadcast and print media and anyone who is perceived to criticize the president risks being jailed for a maximum of five years.
Of interest to this study is the Peoples Republic of China. The history of the oppression in China dates back to 1921 when the Chinese Communist Party was formed by Mao Zedong. Mao borrowed much from Karl Marx and the Russian experience. China just like all other communist states adopted an authoritarian rule where all aspects of the lives its people were dictated by the government.
China has lately moved away from some of the totalitarian attributes of communism. This is exhibited by a move towards a free market economy. This has worked towards creating a country that is the economic giant that China is today.
On the social and political front, a lot still need to be done as the freedom of expression is still curtailed by the government. State departments no longer control the mobilization of resources and consequent processes like distribution and pricing. The economic engine of China has therefore continued roaring towards economic success but other freedoms have yet to be given a lease of life. (Guillaumin 48). The media is censored by the government and broadcast and print journalism are both regulated by the government.
The Internet has however revolutionized the information age making it hard for the Chinese government to regulate or track all the information. A culmination of oppressive practices by the government of China led to a wave of violent protests mainly from students in 1989. The fall of communism during the same period also inspired the protests. The protests in China were seen as having been against the ideological concept of communism.
Many people were killed in Tiananmen Square in the heat of the revolt as the government of China finally succeeded in quelling the revolt. One of the measures that the Chinese government adopted and which dealt a severe blow to the freedom of speech was the resolution that communication between the citizens had played a pivotal role in fuelling the mass protests in Tiananmen. The freedom of speech had to be controlled by the state from that time henceforth.
A sect named the Falun Gong which had begun initially as a religious outfit was banned during the very period when the 1989 riots were gaining momentum. The Falun Gong was gaining popularity among the people of China and was therefore seen as a veritable threat to the government of China. Internet crackdown on links that led to the access of the sites of the Falun Gong was initiated and the sect was ultimately outlawed in 1999. Some of its members was imprisoned without being accorded legal hearings. Others were subjected to human rights abuses like torture. In modern day China, the government has made attempts towards blocking the use of the internet or to control its use for fear that it would promote communication between the citizens to the detriment of the government.
In conclusion, several ideas in perspective are seen to promote the oppression of the freedom of speech and thoughts. All the governments that stifle the freedom of speech and thoughts exercise absolute authority.(Cudd 22). The authorities exercise unlimited power to regulate the freedom of speech.
This is not the case in the more democratic countries where there is freedom of speech. Some of the countries in the world that are considered to have a free press include Australia, France, Canada, Britain, the United States, Belgium and the Bahamas to mention but a few. Countries which negate the best practices of the freedom of speech use unorthodox methods to indoctrinate the population in a bid to stem the possibility of the development of a revolt.
They make the public believe that any amount of resistance against the authorities will be punished severely. They also teach them through societal institutions of religion, the family, the school, and the state controlled media that their suffering is deserved. Religious institutions in these countries teach the populations to have faith in the suffering they undergo as it is bound to be compensated in life after death. The authorities also mete out terror systematically on the public.
It must be reckoned that governments must use power effectively. Power is more often an offshoot of greater control of resources. These resources take the form of wealth, organizational skills, weapons, and knowledge. The utilitarian value of power rests not in the control of wealth but in the mobilization of resources for meaningful power whose use is commensurate to the needs of the people. The freedom to exercise free speech and thoughts is part of the needs of any citizens in a free country.
Works Cited
Cudd, Ann E.Analysing Oppression.Oxford: University Press, 2006:11-35
Guillaumin, Colette. Racism, Sexism, Power and Ideology.london: Routledge, 1995:23-50
Smith, Morgan. Why I stick it to the man, and why you should too. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008:1-36
It is indeed true that the freedom of individual expression largely emanates from the level of autonomy granted. When our individual autonomies are restricted, the freedom of expression is also affected. This implies that autonomy is the epitome of the freedom of expression in many ways.
Nonetheless, a certain level of restriction is usually applied by authorities in cases whereby the granted autonomy may lead to chaos or disruption of peace (de Zayas & Martín, 2012).
Some critics argue that individual autonomies may be restricted on the basis of persuasive speech. However, expressive statements that are too persuasive may not necessarily be stopped by the government except in extraordinary situations when such speeches are meant to cause fear. If negative consequences are brought about by a speech, then it is justifiable for the authorities to inject some restrictions (Kendrick, 2014).
Needless to say, offensive speech cannot be allowed by the government because it does not go hand in hand with the tenets of true autonomy. It can be proper for a speech to be permitted even if it is persuasive so long as it does not offend others. Perhaps, this is the point of diversion between autonomy and restriction of the freedom of expression.
There are myriads of laws that have been established with the aim of reviewing the impacts of freedom of speech. A speech might be considered to be offensive in various ways. In some cases, individuals are offended by the freedom of speech if they suspect that the impacts will be negative (Temperman, 2011). Owing to the persuasion principle, the freedom of speech cannot be easily suppressed.
It is also interesting to mention that a given piece of speech can be offensive without necessarily being persuasive. In other terms, a speech might be intrinsically offensive (McLaughlin, Uggen & Blackstone, 2012).
Self-fulfillment of every individual is the main factor that drives the freedom of speech and expression. The latter is also instrumental when seeking the autonomy of individuals. Freedom of opinion and expression is one of the crucial political freedoms and fundamental freedoms practiced globally (Claybourn, 2011). It goes hand in hand with freedom of information and specifically freedom of the press.
The latter refers to the freedom for a newspaper owner to say or be silent about what he sees fit in his journal. It is subject to response by the courts for libel or slander. Defamation and slander are the main reasons why restrictions on the notion of freedom of expression for any public speech exists (Temperman, 2011).
For some scholars like Kant, freedom of expression is necessary since it elevates the inner thoughts of an individual. Of course, the freedom to speak or write can be taken away by a higher power. We can say that this external power that robs men the freedom to communicate their mind publicly, also removes the freedom of thought.
The latter is a clear indication that the freedom of speech and expression have notable clash with the autonomy prescribed by individuals. One of the ways that can be used to bridge the gap or balance the conflict is the adoption of internationally recognized pieces of legislation that bind every nation (Temperman, 2011). For instance, the freedom of opinion should be presumed as a basic right to every individual.
The Human Rights declaration does not specify the particular conditions or restrictions on the freedom of expression. Nonetheless, a number of jurisdictions under the umbrella of the United Nations and countries bound by the declaration tend to restrict this freedom since it prohibits the language that agitate for racial, national or religious hatred (Temperman, 2011).
Freedom of expression is often the first freedom eliminated in totalitarian regimes. Since the late twentieth century, the emergence of various forms of mass communication such as the Internet alongside the inability of states to adapt to such technological developments have led to several challenges.
As a result, there has been growing need to control the freedom of expression and take it over completely as it is the case with a country like China (Temperman, 2011).
Freedom of expression is subject to limitations that are prescribed by law and are deemed necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others. This means that restrictions are often imposed on the freedom of expression whenever deemed necessary.
For security reasons (for example repression of incitement to commit crimes or offenses), restriction on the freedom of expression may be imposed and consequently affect the autonomy of individuals. Second, protection of the rights of individuals may take place when there are possibilities of repression of public insult and defamation, or the fight against racial discrimination and denial.
When individuals or institutions can intervene formally to limit expression outside the restricted case, we talk about censorship. Sex and violence are among the topics covered most often by censorship.
Several states also have laws against blasphemy, that are considered by several secular activists as an attack on the freedom of expression. Therefore, freedom of expression remains restricted in several jurisdictions (de Zayas & Martín, 2012).
Freedom of expression also encounters a severe limitation with respect to private life and hence the autonomy of an individual.
Freedom of expression is perhaps not the first or most fundamental freedom (freedom of movement is the first freedom or the freedom that determines priority and takes precedence over others). Freedom of expression has been dismissed by some political theorists as a Western perspective or philosophy (Temperman, 2011).
During the 1960s, the freedom of expression was sought by a significant number of pressure groups following attempts to recurrent pornographic or immoral literature materials that were censored. Today, there are myriads of legislations in place that address offensive terms that may be used against minority groups or religions.
Regularly, writers and publishers are concerned about the resurgence of censorship. The reason given in most cases is not pornography, but hate speech. In the United States, a new anti paparazzi came into effect in California since January 1, 2010. It has been claimed by the actress Jennifer Aniston and supported by several other celebrities.
Sexual harassment is obviously a criminal offense punishable by law. If committed by an employee; it is liable to disciplinary action that should be taken by the employer. In the context of labor relations, sexual harassment can take many forms: blackmail hiring or promotion, threats of retaliation if a victim refuses to give in to sexual advances, and so on (de Zayas & Martín, 2012).
The harasser can be the employer, a colleague of the victim, a recruiting firm or a customer of an organization. It is the responsibility of employers to take all necessary steps to prevent acts of sexual harassment, stop it and even inflict punishment to the offenders. Sexual harassment entails the act of imposing an indecent act of sexual behavior and tendencies on a person.
This may take place repeatedly and eventually culminate into impairing of a person’s dignity. Sexual harassment may also be executed verbally to the detriment of the victim’s personal values. An employee can be intimidated by all forms of sexual harassment and finally limit his or her autonomy. An individual may also be grossly humiliated in a situation that entails sexual harassment.
The scope of protection of victims and witnesses of sexual harassment in the context of the employment relationship is one of the pointers that can be put into consideration when exploring the issue of autonomy and the freedom of expression or speech. Although there are labor laws in place, it is the responsibility of employers to make sure that victims of sexual harassment are safeguarded.
What sanctions can be taken against the perpetrator of sexual harassment? In any case, individuals who have been sexually harassed at workplace may lack the autonomy to perform as per the expected standards since they fear losing their jobs (de Zayas & Martín, 2012).
Labor inspectors are in particular responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Labor Code and other legal requirements relating to employment (Claybourn, 2011). They are responsible, in conjunction with the officers and agents of the judicial police, to report violations stated in the labor laws provisions.
Acts of sexual harassment committed by an employee should be fully subjected to disciplinary sanction by the employer.
I believe that there is a difference in ideology between the perspectives exemplified in the above section. Therefore, the freedom of expression and autonomy of individuals should be exercised within the provisions of the law in order to bridge the gap or minimize the prevailing conflicts.
References
Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement, work characteristics and workplace harassment. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 283-301.
de Zayas, A., & Martín, Ã. R. (2012). Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee. Netherlands International Law Review, 59(3), 425-454.
Kendrick, L. (2014). Free Speech and Guilty Minds. Columbia Law Review, 114, 1255- 1295.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625- 647.
Temperman, J. (2011). Freedom of expression and religious sensitivities in pluralist societies: Facing the challenge of extreme speech. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011(3), 729-757.
One of the greatest achievements of the contemporary democratic society is the freedom of speech. In America, freedom of speech is considered to be one of the most cherished values. Every American citizen has the right to express his opinions and ideas. The basis for freedom of speech in America comes from the First Amendment, which declares that no law, which abridges freedom of speech, can be adopted by Congress. The fundamental principle of the American system is the idea of free and open exchanging of thoughts, which enables to find truth and explode lie.
At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish freedom of speech and a persons ability to speak whatever he wants. The freedom of speech is not total. This fact is used by those who consider freedom of speech to be a myth in America. Indeed, they have certain reasons for it because the First Amendment talks only about Congress, but nothing is said about other branches of power. However, it is necessary to realize in what cases the government has the right to abridge the freedom of self-expression. This restriction is intended to avoid actions that would harm others, that can cause damage to private property, or even to the health of citizens. For instance, the government within reasonable limits may put restrictions on demonstrations of protest in living districts, in order to assure public safety.
Side by side with the freedom of speech, there exists such notion as censorship. Sometimes the restrictions, which are made for censorship reasons, are considered to be free speech restrictions or restrictions of freedom of expression. My strong belief is, these things have nothing in common, and it is necessary to make a clear distinction between them.
The recent terrible events, which have taken place in France, are confirmation for this. It goes without saying, that there is no excuse for those, who have carried out such terrorist acts. Human life is the highest value and no one, whatever the reasons are, has a right to take it away. However, I think that the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, which are considered to give rise to this tragedy, are far from being politically correct. In my opinion, such vulgar drawings, that insult the religious feelings of citizens, that cause ethnic hostility, must be censored, especially in such complicated and multinational countries as France. To my mind, the French government, which has not responded in an appropriate manner to this threat, bears to a certain extent responsible for this tragedy.
Politicians, regardless of their views and confessions, are responsible for their country. On the one hand, like any citizen, they have the right to freedom of speech. On the other hand, they should try to foresee the possible events, and always be politically correct. A phrase, which is said under the influence of emotions, may cause serious consequences. At the same time, in the government of any country, there are political figures who always express their views, regardless of subsequences. It is difficult to say whether they are right or not. To my mind, we have to elect politicians not for their words, but for their actions. In the modern world, our political views are highly dependent on mass media, and I think that such vital questions, as the problems of the foreign policy of the state should be discussed in public.
In general, the problem of free speech is rather complicated, and I think every person understands it in his own way.
This study evaluates an article by Chris Berg, which was published in a website titled, the Age. The article was titled, the Weight of the World. The article speaks against negative criticisms leveled against Wiki leaks and its founder Julian Assange (Berg 2010).
The publication therefore advanced the fact that, wiki leaks was only upholding the freedom of the press in its publication of diplomatic cables about the US, and subjecting its founder to negative criticism, or trying to muzzle its activities, was nothing but an effort to muzzle the press. The core issue tackled in the publication therefore revolved around press freedom and the efforts, particularly advanced by the US congress, to muzzle it.
The article further went ahead to stipulate the role of the press in the society, and in doing so, it categorically stated that, the press does not hold any responsibility to any government, to smoothen their diplomatic activities, or soften their relations with the world’s foreign leaders.
Comparison was made of past efforts to muzzle the press and what is currently happening with wiki leaks. In this analysis, there was a clear effort made to associate the freezing of wiki leak’s activities with past efforts of governments trying to muzzle the media (Berg 2010). Moreover, the power of the US congress is identified to have the leading responsibility in trying to gag the media because of its immense legislative power.
Generally, I concur with the main theme of the article, which is to show that, freedom of the press ought to be upheld at all times, and the freezing of wiki leaks is nothing short of gagging the media. In this regard, this study’s evaluation of the publication is positive and in subsequent subsections of this article, I will clearly demonstrate why.
Analysis
Julian Assange and his wiki leaks website represent the freedom to communicate and express oneself through media publications. His actions therefore truly define the freedom of the press because there is no clause in the freedom of press law that limits the publication of information such as diplomatic cables.
Furthermore, wiki leaks activities are firmly entrenched in the bill of rights that touches on its activities because it states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers” (Cornwell 2004, p. 21).
The activities of wiki leaks therefore perfectly fit the privileges and rights of the press that are defined by the freedom of press clause and the universal bill of rights. Moreover, in order for the press to be truly perceived as free, it ought to be free from the interference of the state (Cornwell 2004, p. 21).
Contrary to this view, the US congress seems to be interfering with the activities of wiki leaks by leveling charges against the organization and its founder. Moreover, its actions against wiki leak’s sponsors such as Amazon, MasterCard, PayPal and such like organizations, clearly amount to a breach of the freedom of the press because this is some form of state interference in the activities of the press.
Furthermore, the motivation of the US government in interfering with the activities of wiki leaks stems from the international embarrassment it got as a result of the diplomatic leaks (Berg 2010, p, 16). Particularly, the US government felt more embarrassed that, it is diplomatic communication was not secure and that, third parties could access its internal communication systems.
The potential threat of the diplomatic leaks soiling the relationship it had with its foreign partners was also a primary motivator for the US government to muzzle the activities of wiki leaks by exercising its political muscle over companies which support the organization. From this analysis, we therefore see that, the muzzling of wiki leak’s activities was motivated by selfish reasons, on the part of the US government.
Though some people may argue that, governments normally have a right to determine what kind of information is to be leaked to the public, under the rights and privileges of state security, defined under the freedom of press clauses, there is enough evidence to suggest that wiki leaks made an effort to engage the US state department to edit the kind of information that was going to be leaked to the public.
However, when the US government failed to oblige, it had to edit the information by itself and release it to the media. In support of this fact, Berg (2010) states that, “Wiki Leaks even asked the US State Department to help editing unnecessarily risky documents, a practice common when the press deals with classified material. The State Department refused” (p. 9). From this analysis therefore, there is no reason to subject wiki leaks to a complete shutdown because of its professional conduct.
Evaluation
From the above subsection of this study, we see that, the attack on wiki leaks activities amounts to a breach of the freedom of the press because the actions of the US congress amounts to state intervention, which is clearly stated as a breach of the freedom of press (Berg 2010, p. 2).
Moreover, wiki leaks demonstrated a lot of professionalism when dealing with state, or classified information, by seeking the input of the US government before it published the diplomatic information. Only when the US government refused to collaborate, did wiki leaks publish the information.
Criticisms leveled against the wiki leaks founder are also to be regarded as a contravention of human rights, which guarantee the right of speech, opinion and expression, since the actions of congress were aimed at muzzling the organization’s freedom to express itself, but most importantly, curtailing the access of information to the public.
Moreover, the motivations of the US government in interfering with wiki leak’s activities are questionable because they seem rather, selfish and motivated by pride. This can be seen from the fact that the US government only got embarrassed from wiki leak’s diplomatic leaks and never did the damage seem to threaten the security of the US government in protecting its citizens (Berg 2010).
Its reasons for criticizing wiki leaks are therefore motivated by its efforts to save its image on the international platform, but most importantly, its actions are fueled by its political muscle in curtailing the activities of wiki leaks by threatening its sponsors through legislative might.
From this analysis, we therefore see that, the US state intervention is a clear breach of the freedom of the press and a breach against human rights, which guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression. However, the only argument against an exercise of this freedom is the release of classified information that wiki leaks specialized in.
Nevertheless, we can see that, wiki leaks demonstrated utmost professionalism when dealing with the classified information by seeking the input of the US government before realizing the diplomatic cables. From this analysis therefore, it is safe to suggest that, wiki leaks acted in the most professional way possible and the criticism of the US government on the organization’s activities are unfounded and irrational, but most importantly, they have no legal backing.
Conclusion
From the prevailing factors affecting the US’s actions against wiki leaks, we can see that, the US’s actions against wiki leaks were motivated by pride and might. In other words, there is no concrete legal backing for the actions of the US government in trying to freeze the activities of wiki leaks and its founder.
Legally, it is clear that, wiki leaks followed all laid down provisions governing its professional conduct. Obviously, its professionalism stems from its efforts to seek the input of the US government before the publication of the diplomatic cables.
The fact that, wiki leaks was leaking classified information to the general public would have been the greatest weakness of this argument because the media is required to seek the intervention of state authorities before leaking classified information to the public, because of the security interests associated with such information.
Since wiki leaks observed this provision, this weakness fails to dilute the argument that, the action to curtail the activities of wiki leaks amounts to curtailing the freedom of the press. From this analysis therefore, we see that, state interference in the wiki leaks saga was unwarranted, and it amounted to a breach of the freedom of the press. This argument is therefore a positive evaluation of Berg’s publication that reiterates the same argument.