Free Speech And The Free Society
Free Speech is defined as the freedom to speak without any censorship and limitations. Under the Declaration of Human Rights, it is the right of every human being that he must acknowledge and practice free speech in any circumstances (Kramer, 2002). Freedom of speech is closely related with the freedom of expression which means the liberty of seeking, imparting information and receiving. Though the term is highly emphasized in all the countries, practically there are always some restrictions in every country depending upon the cultural and social obligations (Kramer, 2002).
The free speech issue is one of the most contentious as related in the liberal societies. With regards to the problem, free speech most of times is sacrificed for the other so called more important issues. The volatility of the issue makes it more controversial. Critics outline that there is nothing such as a free meal and therefore nothing like a free speech, it is not existed. One thing can be greatly observed that when the topic of free speech is discussed, the freedom to discuss becomes limited. This is how the free speech is observed in different societies. Right from the history, the governments and kingdoms have tried to honor the free speech but it had never happened. The British parliament first observed free speech in the modern countries but still the members are obliged to stay in limits. The war on terror is one example where free speech has been eradicated and everyone has been forced to get involved in it even if someone is against.
John Mill was among the pioneers to study the topic of free speech and put forward various convictional facts about it. According to him, even if a doctrine is immoral, it must allow its dwellers to at least speak what they think is right (Jacobson, 2000). It is the responsibility of the rule that laws should be governed only when if something wrong has happened not when if someone has put forward his thoughts and spoken what he feels is right. Nevertheless, the critics have been there to analyze the meaning of free society. Western countries are using the force to prioritize democracy as a mode of government in many parts of the world. The war on terror that enclosed Iraq and Afghanistan depict these actions where the democracy has been applied, though at the lowest stage. The reason for this is to make people responsible for what they choose. European countries are there as well to promote the same, but what is actually happening in these countries. United States is a country where there are phases of free speech. The freedom of speech is only available to certain people who somehow control some fortune. The media is the mode of communication that has the responsibility to speak the truth no matter what it is, but the policies of government have obliged them to showcase what they want (Kramer, 2002). This is not a free speech by any means. The discrepancies are there to be observed and the reasons are quite easy to detect i.e. the free speech option can bring revolutions. If media had portrayed the Vietnam War, the war would have been over long ago, because no one exactly knew why this war being fought and how many of their soldiers were being killed each day (Jacobson, 2000).
A debate had arisen in recent year about the offensiveness of the materials. The websites and books contain materials that are offensive to certain people and groups. According to some, the solution of this problem is to ban them. Is this possible? This critically means that if I have beliefs related to certain religion, I should be killed. If I publish something that is learnt from the teachings of my religion, it should be banned! The websites are the most common way to express feelings and show people your interests. The blogs are there as well which people use to write about their thoughts and their experience. If free speech wouldn’t have been available, there was no way these things would have ever existed. The legislation of Net Neutrality is based on the free speech principle, which has made at least internet a free place to view, showcase and speak whatever someone desire (Kramer, 2002).
In the democratic states, when free speech is discussed, the topic of hate speech is also surfaced. Hate speech is defined under the free speech by most of the authors but it is completely different type of speech. Hate speech is most of the times performed in order to target some offense against other groups or communities regardless of fact that it is either based on truth or false. However, hate speech makes it really easy for the administrators to extend the meaning of its definition. Whenever free speech takes place, it is banned as hate speech if the free speech requires some changing in the administration infrastructure and the policies. According to Fish (1994), a good policy will not assume that the only relevant sphere of action is the head and larynx of the individual speaker”. Therefore in democratic states, in order to keep the democratic values and keeping groups to be singled out just because of personal statements and opinions, hate speeches could be banned but not the free speech. There is a very thin line between these two terms and most of the times the terms are overlapped by those who govern laws as they become unable to discover the objective of the speech.
Processing your request, Please wait....
