I want to write openly but I can't Do that mean I don't have the freedom to express myself?
Well, I left it out How important is freedom of expression! Freedom of expression is within our basic needs But let's think a little differently
You are the king of a country Suppose you are the king of your country, the one with the highest power There are millions of people in your country Do you believe that not everyone has the same ideology?
Let's go a little deeper You first decided that the rich would give their money to the poor so that the poor would not suffer. It is clear that you are doing this to alleviate the suffering of the people in your country, to ensure the happiness of all But those who are rich are not harmed in such a way that they will sit on the road
But even if your opinion is for the good but for the most part it will feel bad Many will not want them They will say why they give their property? Hundreds of such doctrines
In the old days, when kings were ruling, many such decisions were made for the benefit of the country. Which had to be accepted And no one could speak against it That is why a competent ruler would always make progress in a country I think if there was a UN then, I don't think one king could destroy another and cause trouble to the people
So in all cases, there must be a group of doctrines! Everyone's ideology is not the same There are many. If everyone obeys, there will be chaos in the society That is why a leader or head is elected in the society If there was no opinion of the people, then there was no need for a king or a judge Everyone would accept everyone's opinion Differences of opinion, differences of thought cause many problems If everyone has the ability to express this opinion, then their opinion creates many groups in the society Which can bring chaos
So I don't think everyone needs freedom of expression! But it is not right that it is not absolutely necessary In some cases it is necessary
Freedom of speech is the individual or community; Freedom of expression without fear or favor, without authorization, without obligation to seek blessing. Composition 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes freedom of expression in agreement with transnational mortal rights law.
This 19th paragraph was latterly amended by ICCPIR, quoting; The exercise of these rights contains technical rules and liabilities; Still, if this practice harms anyone's quality or public security, also in some cases its free practice is abandoned.
The relationship between the sovereign and the ruled in any state is generally not harmonious. Not indeed in a popular state. Authorities opposed the kick with all available police forces, special services, and the army."In addition to hijacking- murder- thievery- thievery they're also involved in felonious conditioning like theft- swiping- hijacking. Opposition parties, on the other hand, condemn the ruling class leaders and activists. With law enforcement.
In making counter-accusations, one side becomes a flatterer of the government, and the other side incites militancy and extremism. But these two parties, consciously and subconsciously, harm the state and the nation, they do not understand that. They speak in various meetings, on the stage, and in processions, saying things that are not normal. They contradict each other's statements, making them part of freedom of speech.
The opposition thinks that it is possible to express one's opinion on any issue anytime, anywhere. Not only the opposition but also a section of the civil society thinks so. However, they almost complained that there is no freedom of speech in the country. On the other hand, the government claims that the citizens are enjoying free freedom of expression. A review of the causal relationship between the claims and denials of both sides raises three questions.
- What kind of freedom of speech do people want to enjoy?
- Who complains about not having freedom of speech?
- Will the militant-extremist-murderous-liberation war opposition groups, as well as ordinary citizens, enjoy their freedom of expression?
It is important to resolve the issue of freedom of expression first: Who has the right to express what kind of opinion? Generally, any person or group expresses their views for the benefit of the nation. It can sometimes be just for the benefit of the individual. However, if it does not cause harm to anyone else, the state will not be able to stop such expressions even if it interferes.
Freedom of speech may not be honored as final. Freedom of speech can be confined by a policy of detriment if it interferes with or harms the freedom of others in matters of vilification, libel, pornography, profanity, obnoxious language, intellectual property, marketable sequestration, public safety, etc. The conception of this detriment policy was formulated by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty.
There, he said, "in cultivated society, power can only be exercised against the will of a person if it's done to help detriment to be done to another person. They're banned by creating, in which case the quantum of speech, the time, the purpose of the speaker, how fluently it can be avoided-all these are taken into consideration.
With the elaboration of the digital age and the discovery of new ways of communicating, the debate over the operation of freedom of speech and its restrictions has been boosted. For illustration, in the Golden Shield design initiated by the Chinese government, the Ministry of Public Security averted potentially wrong information from leaving the country.
If the allegations made at such public meetings and seminars are not true, then the question arises as to how the representatives of this political or civil society are making these allegations while sitting in this meeting. When they are accusing the government of looting, kidnapping, murder, and corruption against the state itself, is the administration coming and resisting them?
However, the leaders of the ruling party responded to these statements politically, even though they did not obstruct the Leader of the Opposition or the representatives of the civil society during these events. And it is not always the political decency that the ruling class maintains in answering. They also utter such words, and present such information, it is really offensive-defamatory.
The consequences of this defamatory statement are twofold. If any leader of the opposition makes such a statement, a case is filed against him under the Information Technology Act with defamation charges. Not only the person concerned but also the leaders and activists of the concerned minister-MP do not want to lose the honor of being the historical plaintiff in this case.
So far a new piece of information has emerged from the discussion that freedom of speech is logically enjoyed by both the ruling party, the opposition, and the pro-party civil society. But the opposition cannot take legal action against the opposition in the same way as it violates the limits of personal-social-political decency.
However, because of the inequality of this opportunity, it cannot be said that there is no freedom of speech in the country. Rather, it would not be unreasonable to say that the administration does not always maintain equity in obtaining legal aid.
With the restriction of freedom of speech, the interpretation of the policy of harm and the policy of contempt has become culturally and politically different. In Russia, for example, the policy of harm and contempt has been used to justify the use of the Russian LGBT Propaganda Act in order to suppress opinions and movements related to LGBT. In some European countries, where they are proud to establish freedom of speech, the Holocaust denial of national opinion (where it is said that the Holocaust was not the intention of Nazi Germany, etc.) is also prohibited.
| - | In these countries- |
|---|
| Austria | Belgium | Czech | Republic | France | Germany | Hungary | Israel | Liechtenstein |
|---|
| Lithuania | Netherlands | Poland | Portugal | Slovakia | Switzerland. |
|---|
The thing is - who says there is no freedom of speech? What kind of freedom of speech do they want? It should not be forgotten that if any militant-extremist group inside the country wants freedom of expression, then that group cannot be given freedom. If the opponents of the independence of the country during the war of liberation also want freedom of speech by arguing in favor of their actions, then they too should not be given that opportunity according to the law of justice.
Freedom of expression for militant groups or anti-independence groups would be dangerous for the country's law and order situation. At the same time, it is a threat to the independence and sovereignty of the country. They will invite the whole nation either too militant activities or to sedition. The whole nation will be divided. Civil war will begin. However, extremist and anti-independence groups do not stop secretly if they do not get a chance to publicly express their views.
Reviewing this article of the constitution on freedom of speech, it will be seen that no one can express his opinion on any issue if he wants to. Freedom of expression is also associated with the condition of consideration. It is also important not to hurt the feelings of others without a just cause. Anyone can enjoy the freedom of expression on any subject to these two conditions.
The state cannot interfere in that freedom in any way. If it intervenes, the state can no longer assume the identity of a democratic state. That state will become backward-reactionary-fascist. Such a state can never bring any good to its citizens. In the end, it cannot sustain its own existence.
Although the state stood infrastructurally, it became an ineffective state. Then the imperialist states started sniffing about that ineffective state. At the same time, various sanctions and economic sanctions were imposed. And then the rulers of that country, instead of being friends of the people of the country, became the puppets of the will of foreign masters.