freedom of speech

freedom of speech

The Importance of Freedom of Speech

1. The Definition and Significance of Freedom of Speech

The simple but powerful definition of “freedom of speech” is the right of every individual to voice his or her opinion without fear of retribution or censure. This definition hinges on the idea that a healthy society and democracy depends on the free flow of information and uninhibited debate. “Without free speech and the open exchange of ideas, a democracy cannot make informed decisions,” says Jodie Ginsburg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. But for free speech to provide meaningful debate for individuals and serve a public good, it must be protected as a basic human right, and not just as a political idea contingent on the government’s goodwill. Freedom of speech is a global perspective and human rights framework, and is not solely defined by laws or practices protecting speech in opposition to a specific state or political authority. This perspective is why a recent article published in The Economist claims that in America, there is growing disbelief in free speech.

2. The Role of Freedom of Speech in Democratic Societies

Free speech has a definite role in the access to information, which is crucial to the decision-making processes in a democratic society. Absolutists might say that everyone has a right to say what they want, but in reality, this isn’t true. Those who do not have access to decision-makers lack the right to free speech because they lack the right to an audience. Despite this, decisions are rarely made by one person alone. Usually, decisions in a democratic society are arrived upon by a group, and each person individually has had influence on the decision. In order to influence decisions in a democratic society, it has been shown that public protest is an effective method. This is because it is a disruption to the status quo and it can interfere with the decisions that are being made. An early example of this is when Socrates asked awkward questions in the street and the assembly. This engagement in free speech led to his trial and execution, but his method has been shown to be effective.

Democratic systems are those in which governments are put in place to constructively serve and benefit the common good. In a democratic society, it is said that individual rights are given high priority. The ideology of free speech is intricately linked to that of democratic societies. The theory implies a natural link between the development of the conscious self and a functioning democracy. Free speech rights are designed to guarantee an open exchange of views, which is essential to liberty and democracy. In my essay, I will attempt to break down and analyze the importance of free speech in a democratic society and will argue the point that free speech has limitations and these limitations can be seen to highlight its importance.

3. The Limitations and Challenges of Freedom of Speech

In Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, freedom of expression is protected. But the euphoric sense of the word becomes confused when the issue of what society deems appropriate is raised. There is much legislation which limits expression: laws on defamation, prevention of terrorism, and laws against hate speech. When one considers if something is an attack on their freedom of speech set out in the constitution, it is often difficult to define what speech is acceptable and what is not. British libel laws have been criticized for being too harsh on the media, preventing the truth, and infringing the right to free speech. That is the view taken by Index on Censorship, who say they are a British-based organization promoting freedom of expression. Their aims are reflected in a statement given by Roman Pokock MBE, who is a Polish journalist, broadcaster, and author living in the UK. He said, “I feel shame that a country that has shown us so much goodwill and helped us free ourselves from the oppression of the Soviet Union has embedded in its legal system a practice that is alien to British people and to English justice itself. The practice I am speaking about is libel tourism, with companies and individuals who have no real connection to this country using British Courts to attack people who have exercised their right to criticize them.”

4. Protecting and Promoting Freedom of Speech

While it is true that hate speech can cause significant harm to the victims, it is important that we weigh this harm against the long-term benefits of a more just society and the importance of this issue to the essence of freedom of speech.

In a landmark case relevant to this issue, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance that prohibited any person from placing on public or private property a symbol which arouses anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender. The court did not question that this ordinance served a compelling state interest, but ruled that the ordinance was not content nor viewpoint neutral as it allowed for harsher punishment of the person’s speech if the crime was committed because of the perceived race, color etc. of the victim. This decision illustrates that restrictions on speech, even if partially motivated by good intentions, are often contrary to the principles of the first amendment. This precedent makes it difficult for additional hate speech laws to pass in the U.S., which is beneficial for freedom of speech at least in the short-term.

An experiment conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison psychologists and the Florida State University School of Social Work found that ethnically diverse neighborhoods had higher community satisfaction and lower community violence when compared to ethnically homogenous neighborhoods. During the 80s and 90s when hate speech regulations were being considered in the UK, black community leaders argued against such regulations on the basis that exposure to racially intolerant speech would encourage racial minorities to become more politically active. This would lead to a more just society by eradicating racial inequality, and today the UK has far more ethnic minority politicians than any other country in Europe. This is not to say that we should encourage hate speech, but it is clear that the short-term harms of protecting such speech can often serve the long-term interests of the society as a whole.

Freedom of speech does not mean much if we cannot exercise this right without fear of repercussions. It is said that people fear what they do not understand; this fear often leads to prejudice and hate towards specific groups of people who are perceived as “different”. Well-intentioned laws designed to protect these groups from hate speech can often be a slippery slope towards restricting the speech of those who criticized the group or the law itself. The United States has allowed hate speech with very few constraints in comparison to other liberal democracies. This has led to a more race-conscious and diverse society in America, as racial minorities are often better off when exposed to marginalization as opposed to the shadow of benevolent racial policies.

The first amendment is under attack and we must defend it. As citizens of the United States, the right to speak our mind is the lifeblood of our society. Free speech is an important right, but how many of us truly exercise this right? In order to enrich our society and ensure that the first amendment remains a vital part of the Constitution, it is imperative that we protect and promote freedom of speech.

5. The Future of Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age

This is, however, a relatively extreme prediction. The future of freedom of speech is more likely to depend on the internet as a vehicle for free speech in the established world. As the traditional media is losing profitability and scope, an increasing number of journalists may seek to bypass media companies and publish news independently on the internet. This is particularly true of investigative journalists with sensitive information. In this capacity, they may have greater freedom than before, as they are not subject to any employer’s self-censorship and do not risk losing as much readership from backlash from any party displeased by the truth. This may serve to uphold the free media as a climate of uncensored information incites public expectation.

Moreover, countries in the developing world are using the internet as a vehicle to access western media, some of which comes from oppressive countries. For it is right to say that many information requests on the internet, particularly those regarding international events, lead to biased or misrepresented sources, and individuals from countries without a free media may not be able to realize this. A famous example being the photoshopped image of the Iraqi girl whose arms were allegedly removed by US soldiers. This image was used around the Islamic world to incite hatred against the US but was never shown in the west. Potentially, many of these countries would desire to censor certain information which impinges on their national interests but due to its international nature, it may be impossible for them not to attempt to restrict information flow into their countries. The only alternative for some regimes in the face of damaging information could be to exert pressure on western nations to restrict the publishing of information which is accessible from their territories. Failure to comply could even lead to expulsion of certain internet sites from countries and a global media divided along national interest lines.

Counterintuitively, as it was with the printing press, the internet could serve to reduce the freedom of speech enjoyed in the established developed world. This is particularly true in the realm of political correctness. The growth of the internet and social media has created a new international dynamic. As many of the highest circulating websites are the less regulated news sources, traditional media outlets in the developed world are losing readership and the internet is becoming the primary international information source.