Freedom of speech or the right to Privacy - that is the question. It is a difficult one. Both are very important and fundamental human rights, so it is not easy to choose to give up one or the other. These two rights are so intricately entwined.
Freedom of speech means that one should be able to say what they like, when they like and not be impeded.
Of course, such expression will hopefully not be to the detriment of anyone else. Without freedom of speech there is no social media - so no blogging, no practicing of religion or religious leaders, no voting or government representatives, no protests, no freely authored books etc. Basically, there is no “democracy” – the society is not free. We’ve seen on television and read in history books about protests which were broken up and citizens attacked because governments did not want the protest to happen.
protest in Amsterdam-September 2021
Here are the first things that come to mind on the subject:
Protest - In the Netherlands there are rules about protest. The first and most important one is that the mayor’s office must be informed at least 4 full days in advance. One cannot spontaneously decide to protest - permission is needed. The right for freedom of speech/expression is allowed - after permission is granted. One could argue whether that is truly freedom of speech.
Social media - Being a very powerful way of communication online - social media is the epitome of freedom of speech/expression, of our time. As a result, this applies to Hive as well.
The blogs and comments are publicly available for all to see.
Suppose the thoughts expressed in a blog and the comments were curtailed?
One can maintain their privacy by being anonymous, if desired for e.g. on Hive.
Suppose the choice to blog anonymously was not an option and it became mandatory to “dox” oneself?
Wikileaks - As demonstrated by Wikileaks, classified documents can be made public. Wikileaks can argue that they are exercising freedom of expression for the public good. However, the founder, Assange was imprisioned.
With freedom of speech but no privacy, we can be tracked and monitored not only by government but by any opportunist – for good or evil.
Privacy means that one is free from public scrutiny and there is no surveillance by others. In additional, there is no interference as its one’s right to be left alone.
We all like our privacy and as mentioned before it goes hand in hand with freedom of speech. If there is privacy but freedom of speech is not allowed – there will be no cultural or social expression. It is human nature that there will be dissension and rebellion at some point. Some people would fearfully track any disallowed self-expression both on or offline by the dissenters. Tracking is interference or infringement of one’s privacy but it would be done anyway, to catch those freely expressing themselves.
In the absence of freedom of speech - privacy measures can become controlling. Freedom of expression usually keep privacy measures in check.
Privacy in this digital age, is and will continue to be difficult. Facebook was an example of infringement of privacy with data being used without users permission. For governments, most citizens are required to have some form of national identification. Medical, travel and financial information is being stored and monitored continuously. There are also thousands of CCTV cameras in most cities. They are there for our safety but they can track behaviours as well.
In recent times, we have observed that the world collectively gave up their right to privacy and freedom of expression for the public good. The public good at that time was health related.
Many people will give up their rights due to fear thus opting for safety and security - real or perceived.
waterboarding-Katwijk aan Zee
Many people willingly give up their rights. If given a choice people will give up privacy for convenience.
Travel - Deciding to travel to any place or country of one's choice - is freedom. However, most if not all new passports have a chip in them. That is very handy for navigating the process of arrival and departure from an airport – it's faster. However, one can be tracked by the government. Although in reality, we are most likely tracked without us realising. Our telephone is the easiest surveillance apparatus and we have it with us most of the time.
Banking now - With everyday transactions which we do freely - there is monitoring – so no privacy.
If item are bought, conveniently using a smartphone or bank pass – bank accounts are monitored if the item is 100 euros or more. Cash is accepted in so few places - there are signs everywhere -
"Cash not accepted!"
We agree to this, because we are told that more monitoring is needed to prevent terrorism, money laundering and other illegalities. Seems as though, we become technologically advance and more evil than before because we have new means.
Banking in the future? - If/when Central Bank Digital Currencies(CBDC) are introduced and if we become a cashless society, that freedom of expression regarding how we spend could be monitored. With blockchain technology, it will also be possible to monitor/limit what is bought.
For e.g., how many ice-cream cones or cigarettes one buys in a month. All will be programmable with CBDCs. Hence, we pay the price for this advancement by relinquishing privacy to mitigate the evils highlighted. Potentially, privacy and also freedom of expression could be lost because of our need for security. There is usually no alternative - so everyone acquiesces.
If I were to lose freedom of speech, then I would literally lose my voice and that is taking away my personality and autonomy. If freedom of speech is taken away, I would be living in a society where people are living in fear of saying the wrong thing. There would be lots of snitches and people reporting on each other. We have seen past regimes where this was the case.
Therefore, if I must choose one or the other, I would give up privacy. However, as I've already described, it is almost impossible to have freedom of speech when there is no privacy. One does not want to write an article and be surveilled and/or harassed thereafter, for the views expressed. One right really cannot exist without the other - they reinforce each other.
Having no privacy means that I would be watched and intruded upon all the time - on and offline, at home and as I go about my daily life. A record would be kept of my actions – not only by the government but also by other nosey citizens. That would feel like imprisonment. I would lose my enjoyment of life in general.
In reality, one cannot make a choice between freedom of speech or privacy - they are intertwined. There needs to be a balance between the two for democratic societies to function, and for citizens including myself, to have a dignified and “normal” life.
This is my response to HiveLearners prompt - Freedom Of Speech or Right To Privacy
All photos are my own
