Freedom of speech is regarded as one of the most fundamental rights of the citizens dwelling in the world of democracy. Every democratic country has it mentioned in its constitution that its residents are free to express their opinions in front of the world. Nevertheless, there is no state on the face of the earth where there is absolute freedom of speech. Neither it is practically possible to exercise this right as free as it is portrayed to be.
The freedom to speech comes with several ethical, moral, political and national security concerns. There are individuals and groups who hurt the sentiments of other people taking advantage of the right to free speech. Also, there are evil intentioned people in the society who, utilizing their right to free speech, want to create upheaval, discomfort and chaos for their personal gains.
In the conditions where the authorities feel being threatened by the free speech of factions and individuals in their states, they either create laws against particular kind of speech or they exercise their power unlawfully for maintaining the so called stability.
There arise certain questions about the right to free speech and the efforts to create boundaries for it. Are authorities always wrong in taking actions against particular ideologies? Are people always right in speaking whatever is in their mind? Should authorities have the right to curb what they feel is dangerous for the society? Should masses have the right to say what they feel is crucial no matter how damaging it may be? Is being free to speak the things in our mind always in the greater interest of humanity? Does taking measures against particular agenda always a condemnable behavior?
The questions like these can never have a clear answer in Aye or Nay. In real world, the concerns, complexities and issues are grey rather than black and white. Most of the matters that societies face do not have an objective criterion to distinguish between right and wrong, fair and unfair. The judgements and actions are based on the subjective interpretation of the situation at hand which are influenced by several factors such as cultural norms, religious beliefs, political affiliations and personal interests.
Third world countries are famous for curbing its citizens' freedom of speech by using strategies like internet blackout, digital surveillance, shut down of social media, putting taxation on social media usage (source), abduction of artists (source) and journalists (source), crackdown on protestors (source] and killing masses for raising their voice against the brutality of institutions in the country (source), by arresting and harassing the leaders of opponent political parties (sources) and by arresting and accusing the activists on social media.
In most of the third world countries the voice raises are facing the wrath of their governments for speaking against the injustice, inequality and corruption prevailing in their states. The authorities are exercising their powers to protect their privileges and personal interests on the name of national security. The tactics and strategies are meant to threaten people so that they stay quiet and be not be a threat to status quo.
Nevertheless, censorship and self-censorship is not merely a problem of struggling and under developed countries. It is also existing in the first world countries with the same excuse of maintaining peace and harmony. For instance, the harsh actions taken by Harvard University against its scholars, professors and students for presenting their concerns and view points about certain topics (source and source) have raised questions about freedom of speech. Following the harsh treatment the students and faculty members have reported going on self-censorship to protect themselves from the consequences.
The use of anti-terrorist laws to curb the voice of Pro-Palestinian in Britain (source) is also a demonstration of how governments go to protect their agendas.
France, too, presents a paradox. on one hand it is considered freedom of expression to make cartoons of prophet Muhammad, while on the other hand protestors are convicted of contempt for burning the effigy of the president. While it is lawful to present offending view on religious beliefs in the name of free speech, wearing religious symbols like Hijab is regarded unlawful in the name of protecting secularism (source). While the country is making waves in giving rights to LGBTQ as an expression of freedom (source), it is intending to dissolve Collective Against Islamophobia in France to curb the voice of Muslims (source) regarding it as an “enemy of the Republic."
Banning protest, arresting journalists and the removal of content on the name of hate-speech, disinformation and terrorism spread in various western countries is an open question on freedom of speech there (source).
The thing that I have understood from the situations about the freedom of speech and its limitations is that only people in power have the real right. They may put a ban on any thing they deem as a threat to their agendas.
If the power lies in the right hand more equity and justice will prevail. If the power lies in the evil hands, humanity will experience more unrest. Nevertheless, might is right had always been a truth and will always remain the truth.
The weaker ones will either be silenced by the force of the mightier ones or their struggles will turn the table gaining them the power and giving them the absolute freedom to speech.
We may choose to be in miseries remaining quiet and impose self-censorship to protect us from the negative consequences, or we may show courage to stand up for our rights, struggling against the opposing forces, grabbing their power and making our voices heard.
●●●●●■●●●●●
The post is my response to Hl-featured edition 3 of week 133.
Image created by me using Bing AI.
