Synthesised GP Blog

How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech has always been a concept enshrined by the West to promote liberal democracies. I would consider this a reasonable policy to prevent any veering of governments away from democracy as it gives one the ability to express his or her views about matters within the nation, or at times, out of the nation. One should be allowed this freedom in this free world as far as he or she could afford, I believe. If not, it defeats the purpose of even having this policy at all.

Is the word "freedom" boundless? Yes. To give an individual a yardstick to how far he is allowed the freedom of speech is pointless since "freedom" is already an absolute term. However, I believe as with all freedoms or authority given, there are responsibilities attached. The measure of how far someone should be allowed to speak is not set by anyone else but the free speaker himself with the consequences in mind. This is an understanding we must have before further discussing any limits imposed on freedom of speech.

An individual should be allowed the freedom of speech – or perhaps expression to be more general – to a large extent if not we will risk an oxymoron in the policy itself. How will the concept protect rights if it can be exercised only to a limited extent as prescribed by a government or some other powers? It will then do the opposite of promoting dictatorship instead of giving the people a chance to speak up. An easy example would be that of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq which promptly “disarmed” any opposition parties by swift assassination or other extreme measures. The government has in this case set a boundary on freedom of expression and hence assumed a totalitarianism style of governance.

Opponents of freedom in speech may argue with the Danish caricatures tragedy where the Muslim world has waged a swarm of strong, violent protest against the West and hence the freedom of speech should have been limited within the boundaries of not defaming anyone. My thought is that this is a full-fledged showcase of freedom of expression with no concern from either parties whatsoever with the consequences – the only measure of the freedom. For a first, the Danish papers had exercised without consideration of consequences their press freedom by publishing such a controversial comic strip. Most of the West did the same by reprinting these caricatures as a protest against “limiting free speech”. The Muslim world has done nothing short of a freedom of expression through boycotts, violent protests, burning of the Danish flag, and a variety threats against the West. If any side was to have been limited in their expression, they will be simply put, discriminated. Freedom of speech has been engaged in this case rightly to protect the rights of both groups. Yes it caused serious repercussions (for the West, an obvious risk in violence against themselves and for the Muslim world, an inevitable fueling of ‘Islamophobia’) but as I have said, the parties are accepting this as a trade-off from their expressed freedom.

Following my argument, freedom of expression can be performed in all actions. It applies even to whether you want to exercise the freedom: it is not an obligation if you do not wish to suffer the repercussions. As reiterated by the Danish press Jyllands-Posten, other religions had received their share of mockery from them. The other religions had apparently chosen not to exercise this freedom to cause a serious uproar. They had perhaps taken a more silent approach to resolve this such as self-censorship. We cannot doubt their faith for they too are disapproving the “blasphemy”. Citing the example of freedom of speech ‘allowing’ someone to yell fire in a theatre as a false alarm, it is unquestionably wrong but this freedom has to be present. How else can a spark be reported before it manifests into a blaze? Thus, we should not define a limit for the freedom of expression for it only silences people up.

It has reached a stage of civilisation that we cannot control speech without opposition because it leads us to believe that we are powerless species of this society. Therefore, instead of working towards the meting out of guidelines in freedom of speech, perhaps a more sensible mean would be to move towards tolerance. Too little mercy is currently issued to one's ignorance in another's capacity to endure opinions especially in the case of the Prophet Muhammad cartoon brouhaha. There, a boundary has been set on the freedom of speech. This could only mean a discontentment in the free West. There has also been a misjudgement of the West's comfort with threats by the Muslim world. Belligerence was the scornful resolve that caused the conflict. Had either party been more tolerant, there will be no cause for opposition against full freedom of speech which breeds further disharmony.

In conclusion, freedom of speech cannot be fitted with a rule and be limited. I am not concurring with the point that illegal activities as a freedom but yes, you can perform it if you want to bear the consequences. We have to depend on an individual’s sober mind on setting how much of the freedom he or she wants to exercise. Let not the idea of “limited free speech” be a mask to shroud any probable voice that has rose to inform the world about a hidden fear, discrimination, mistreatment, injustice, danger…

posted by synthesis @ 3:28 PM