freedom of speech amendment

freedom of speech amendment

The Importance of Protecting Freedom of Speech

1. Introduction

Often, if the media has information that is critical of the government of the day or on a matter of public interest, there have been recent attempts by the government to restrict publication of material by the use of injunctions or restrictions via laws such as the Official Secrets Act ‘OSA’ or via D notices. This imposes a form of censorship and is a typical example of the loss of freedom of speech. What is invoked and lost is very hard to regain. This issue becomes more significant in its application to the international community, with a modern-day example being war reporting and the control that is attempted to be imposed on journalists.

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that is intertwined with the history of human rights. Contemporary freedom of speech is related to the right to voice an opinion on a particular issue or to argue a point of view. It is a basic right that is essential for the pursuit of truth and the exposure of information necessary for self-government. This is a vital point and is one such case where freedom of speech is crucial for journalists and the media. The freedom protects the right to publish/broadcast material and opinion without interference from the state. This right has been shown to be very important in modern-day society and is a right that is dangerous to lose.

The topic is an interesting and appealing subject, especially in today’s society where the value of freedom of speech is being questioned. Its relevance to modern-day issues and the protection of this freedom makes it a particularly interesting topic to investigate. It also allows for the discussion of a wide range of issues and helps us understand its significance in different circumstances. These circumstances vary from modern-day cases such as Bredenkamp v Atkinson and Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 1), to past cases such as Galloway v Telegraph Group. Understanding the significance of freedom of speech in these cases is important.

2. Historical Background

The convention had its immediate origins in the desire to prevent another world war. The atrocities of the Second World War made the world recoil in horror. It stunned the collective conscience of mankind. The world said “never again”. But it knew that this aspiration would flounder if all nations do not take resolute backward from a point where the teeming breed of aggressive humanity had so often tarnished its power to build a better life and legacy for the generation next. But to take the backward step and ensure its sustenance proved to be a difficult task. Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials were an attempt to provide that the people should no longer be at the mercy of its rulers. These trials encouraged the preparation of a draft declaration by International Law Commission which was later adopted by General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It is pertinent to mention the backdrop in which the drafting of Convention took place. The distinguished American lawyer and legal philosopher Mr. Hersch Lauterpacht was associated with the International Law Commission. He was still haunted by the memories of his Jewish fellowman. He projected his personal grief on the Jews as a whole, whom he regarded as representative of the weak and defenseless among the nations. At the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, he left to the august presence of a meeting of Europe’s greatest lawyers, he urged league for the freedom and dignity of man. The chief protection against acts of inhumanity, he said lies in the development of moral and legal force of international conscience. Every act of inflicting the indignity upon man involves a violation of human dignity. This prophetic statement by Mr. Lauterpacht was to become the crying clarion-call leading ultimately to the adoption of Convention.

3. Benefits of Freedom of Speech

Societies often endorse standards or values and, in reinforcing those practices, try to control the dissemination of ideas that oppose them. These restrictions come in many forms and can be both informal and formal. The charge can be led by cultural, religious, or political attitudes. In many countries, the idea of prioritizing the state and its functions is so strongly ingrained that anything which questions the state is seen as treacherous. In Islamic states, it is widely regarded as immoral or blasphemous to criticize Islam. It is often said that the single most powerful weapon against tyranny and oppression is the freedom of speech. And from a purely oppositional standpoint, history has shown this to be the case.

Freedom of expression has become a virtual mantra, a chant, a cliche in Western society. It is synonymous with democracy, prosperity, and the overall betterment of humanity. We in the West take pride in our freedoms. The way of life in most democracies is the result of centuries of struggle and enlightened thought. Most democracies are the result of violent upheaval in the process of democratization, while the rest were established by the post-colonial divestiture of imperial powers. Although our democratically rich societies are a bastion of freedom of speech, there are many societies that do not enjoy the same social liberties.

4. Challenges and Controversies

Given freedom of speech, one is allowed to criticise and scrutinise authority figures, contrasting greatly with a society with restrictions in this area. Governments often do not take criticism well; therefore, cases of journalists or people in the political realm being persecuted are not uncommon. Possibly the most famous case of freedom of speech being fought for with determination was seen in the 399 BC trial of Socrates. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and impiety, basically insulting the gods of Athens. Thanks to freedom of speech, Socrates was allowed to defend his right to free public discussion of the great issues of human life, something we all take for granted today. He was not prepared to compromise his philosophical principles by living in exile. Unfortunately for him, his heavy criticism of the Athenian leaders and political system led to a death sentence. This event symbolizes the struggles endured by others throughout history fighting for the right to free speech, and the tragic results still happen in the world today.

Developing an open and democratic society is marked by a constant and dynamic tension between freedom and equality, something which ever changes and is never fully resolved. Freedom of speech is perhaps the epitome of the struggle between freedom and equality. It is recognised as an integral human right, a basic civil liberty, and a fundamental tenet for a modern democratic society. It is so important that it is often enshrined in a Bill of Rights or Constitution. But the implementation and regulation of this right is commonly debated and has caused heated controversy throughout history and across the world.

5. Conclusion

It is because of these restrictions that the right to free speech is often abused. Although these provisions are necessary for certain situations, they are often manipulated by those not wanting their ideas or actions to be criticized. This has been shown with political commentators and satirists, who have been prosecuted under libel law for criticizing public officials, the high arbitrary use of “national security” as a reason for secret legal hearings and the record number of injunctions placed on the media in the year 2005 by large corporations. This is a dangerous practice, as the restrictions on free speech become a license for those in power to silence the voices of opposition, who are often those of people or groups representing outer margins of society who have legitimate grievances to voice. A society in which free speech is restricted by those in power is a slippery slope towards authoritarian rule, and it will be those without a voice who will suffer most from a regress in personal and global liberty.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It is not only the cornerstone of democratic government, but it is the necessary condition for social, intellectual and individual progress. It enables the exchange of ideas, the expression of dissent and the development of a diverse, open society. However, with all said and done, the right to free speech is not absolute. This is shown through the numerous limitations on the central freedom of speech in the first amendment, and in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the exercise of these rights carries with it “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions”.

It is because of these restrictions that the right to free speech is often abused. Although these provisions are necessary for certain situations, they are often manipulated by those not wanting their ideas or actions to be criticized. This has been shown with political commentators and satirists, who have been prosecuted under libel law for criticizing public officials, the high arbitrary use of “national security” as a reason for secret legal hearings and the record number of injunctions placed on the media in the year 2005 by large corporations. This is a dangerous practice, as the restrictions on free speech become a license for those in power to silence the voices of opposition, who are often those of people or groups representing outer margins of society who have legitimate grievances to voice. A society in which free speech is restricted by those in power is on a slippery slope towards authoritarian rule, and one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not suffice to make a man blessed and happy. – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1098a36-1098b1.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It is not only the cornerstone of democratic government, but it is the necessary condition for social, intellectual and individual progress. It enables the exchange of ideas, the expression of dissent and the development of a diverse, open society. However, with all said and done, the right to free speech is not absolute. This is shown through the numerous limitations on the central freedom of speech in the first amendment, and in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the exercise of these rights carries with it “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions”.

One swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not suffice to make a man blessed and happy. – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1098a36-1098b1.