what is freedom of speech

what is freedom of speech

Freedom of Speech: Protecting the Pillar of Democracy

1. Introduction

The essay is as follows. The second section outlines the history of the United States’ legislation regarding free speech and press. It will also show how these laws have evolved to protect an individual’s unalienable right to free speech. The third section will explore the implications of the dilution of the First Amendment for journalists. By examining libel laws, the Cheney case, and the attempts by many to censor the media, this section will show that legislation protecting free speech is only as valuable as the society which enforces it. The fourth section is a case study of the 2004 presidential election. By exploring both the passage of restrictive laws pertaining to protests at the exact time that the nation was engaging in an unpopular war and the use of police force at anti-Bush protests, this case study will demonstrate that effective free speech is often only protected when the views being expressed are in line with those of the ruling powers. The final section of the essay will question countries such as China which claim that their restrictions on free speech are culturally relative and will assert that there are no basic human societies in which people do not want to voice their concerns with the ruling powers at a given point. With the use of examples, it will attempt to show the reader that our current condition of freedom of speech is quite fluid and that the erosion of free speech in the United States is part of a constant global phenomenon in which governments who fear the power of an informed populace always seek to keep the ability to constrain the free flow of ideas.

2. Understanding Freedom of Speech

Ultimately, the freedom of expression may be summarized as allowing each individual the right to be an autonomous human being capable of independent thought and action, and thus securing the dignity that comes with such a personality. It includes the right of all individuals to seek the truth and share information and ideas with others, as a vital aspect of self-fulfillment and realization. As I have explained before, the realization of constitutional rights is essential for each individual’s dignity, and thus state and private action that encroaches upon the right to freedom of expression will often violate the principle of equality as well.

The Constitution of South Africa, 1996, makes provision for everyone’s freedom to access information and freedom of expression, including: freedom to receive and impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of research. These rights, however, are not absolute, and are limited by various other rights contained in the Bill of Rights, general limitations, and in terms of interpretation. Freedom of expression includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or import information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. This right reveals the public importance attached to an informed citizenry in a participatory democracy, and the vital role of the media faithful to: – provide accurate information, diverse views, and analysis – encourage open debate – serve as a forum for the expression of a range of views by citizens on any particular issue – be independent and harassment-free.

3. Importance of Freedom of Speech

Information, explaining concepts, or detailing processes or systems. So, freedom of speech is necessary for the search for truth of the matter, and to this end it applies to matters of ethics and religion. These are controversial and disputable subjects, and only through free discussion of their various aspects can there be any hope of reaching a wise solution. A restriction of free speech in this area would seem to be a symptom of doubt in the power of reason. It is the special province of speech to seek knowledge of the just and unjust; and it is the bounden duty of the ruler to dispense the just and discuss the doubtful. But if the speech of those who advocate justice is oppressed, it will be impossible to know whether they are striving for the just in their private lives and whether the right conduct of the state has been achieved. Freedom of speech is also necessary for the health of a developing culture, and this need is the special need of the young. In contrast with an established dogma, the truth of new and original ideas is never so clear as to permit its unhampered expression. A youth, however ardent and sagacious, finds it difficult to refute an ingrained prejudice, and it is little use to try to dislodge an old idea unless the opposite idea is to be allowed a hearing. New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason, but because they are not already common. And hence a customary way of stifling the freedom of expression of new opinions is to declare them dogmatically erroneous as a device to avoid discussing.

4. Limitations and Challenges

The Human Rights Act 1998 provoked British judges into developing a privacy law, through use of the European Convention on Human Rights, which led to the violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of Expression. The case of Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] EWCA Civ 177) in 2002 set a precedent for more privacy laws to be put in place. This concerned the publication of Campbell’s drug addiction by the Mirror Newspaper. This information had been used by journalists in an attempt to get in contact with Campbell’s former drug addict friends, for evidence that they could use to publish the story. They never actually put the question of Campbell’s alleged drug addiction to her, and just assumed that it was true. Campbell then used the 1998 HRA to obtain a court order against the publishing of the story, claiming that it was a violation of her Article 8 right to privacy. Using case law R v Kansal; R v Gill, Sedley LJ held that the intrusion of this private information into Campbell’s private life was a violation of Article 8(1), since she had a reasonable expectation that information as to her health would be kept private, and was not in the public interest under Article 8(2). He found that this was not a case of jigsaw identification, because the drug addiction was only known to a few of Campbell’s close friends. This led to the action for damages for breach of confidence and a claim for misuse of private information. Although Campbell was successful, the ‘Campbell decision’ has proved to be devastating for journalism. This is because journalists are now faced with the threat of being unable to publish stories on the wrongdoing of public figures, which are of public interest, simply because they involve private information about the individual. This idea was later supported by the case of Max Mosely, who also claimed breach of privacy regarding his sexual activities published by the News of the World, but this time no public interest defence was offered for the story. This has caused a desperate search for a distinct and workable definition of what constitutes private information, and whether there should be a need for a public interest defence. This idea of protection of personality rights was later being supported by the development of the tort.

5. Conclusion

Appealing to John Galsworthy, “If you do not think in freedom, you do not live in freedom. So long as minds are cowed by fear and men are cowed, freedom cannot be. Here and there it might be found, but then it is not yet a natural state. Freedom of speech is the sound that sustains freedom.” Freedom offers people the chance to voice their opinion on a political or social issue, and by use of an uncensored internet, a blog is the modern way to voice an opinion. Weblogs provide an informative platform for discussion on issues ticking under the surface and provide readers with a variety of informed opinions, prompting thought and sometimes change. But with many countries attempting to oppress motives for democratic change, opinions voiced on political issues can be seen as a threat—particularly in the Middle East. In Egypt, a blogger named Muhamed el Shahat was imprisoned for four years for criticizing the Egyptian government on his blog. On the other hand, Iran recently released two well-known bloggers, Hossein Derakhshan and Mojtaba Saminejad, after many years of detention for expressing their critical political opinions. These opinions, while they may offend, are crucial to the sustenance of freedom in people’s lives. If not for free expression, public opinion about an issue may be monotonous and will ultimately lead to a corrupt decision made by those in power, as there will be no concern on the issue from citizens. The power of political commentary blogs was evident in the US in 2004 when CBS reported documents on President George Bush’s military service were revealed to be forgeries due to evidence provided by many bloggers with help from their own site visitors. This incident profoundly impacted the public’s perception of the media and ultimately influenced the result of the ensuing election. Now, more than ever, free speech and freedom of opinion are critical to the formation of public policy and determining the well-being of a nation’s people. An uncensored and open internet has made it possible for anyone to make an impact. But with many nations still at a crossroads with reformation, it remains up to the free nations of the world to ensure that their public opinions are heard.