By Baisali Mohanty
How free are we to exercise our right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Speech and Expression is arguably the most notable instrument through which the ideal of Liberty finds its most articulate and broadest connotation. Most countries across the globe recognize it as a basic political right, protected through law of the land and defendable in a court of law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes it as a human right under Article 19, so as other international covenants on Civil, Political and Human Rights.
In fact, the realization of Freedom of Speech and Expression has come to signify the degree of political sophistication of a society and human development in general. The growing precedence of the latter have led to unprecedented political turmoil over the jurisdiction of Freedom of Speech and Expression and the limits to which it can stretch at most. This pandemonium has thrown the concept of liberty to the centre-stage of contemporary political discourse.
Absolute Liberty or Reasonable Restrictions: The Limits of Freedom of Speech and Expression
Does the right to freedom of speech and expression entail unrestricted liberty? Can the State step in to regulate Freedom of Speech and Expression? What restrictions are reasonable restrictions? Who should decide on the status of liberty? Can creativity be reined?
These are just a few questions confronting the discourse on liberty in light of the right to freedom of speech and expressions. And the discourse has just got complicated with the influx created by the information revolution we have stepped into.
The Idea of Liberty and Censorship
Before the invention of the printing press, a piece, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out. No elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed, who until the 14th century were restricted to religious institutions, and their works rarely caused wider controversy.
The discovery of Printing technology allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information. In response to the printing press, and the heresies it allowed to spread, the Roman Catholic Church moved to impose censorship. Governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books
The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton’s response to the Parliament of England’s re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers. Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton’s essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license, Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood, stating:
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
Succession of English thinkers was at the forefront of early discussion on a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton, John Locke, J.S. Mill. However, all of them agreed to some form of ethical restrictions on freedom of speech.
For instance, John Locke did not support a universal toleration to freedom of speech and insisted that some groups, like atheists, should not be allowed according to propagate their subversive ideas.
In “On Liberty” (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
French Declaration, Bill of Rights and Limitations on Free Speech
The movement for Freedom of Speech and Expression finally culminated in Englands Bill of Rights in1689. The Bill granted ‘freedom of speech in Parliament’. This was followed by the historic The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:
“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
Why Limitations?
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.
Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.
Even the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that recognizes the Freedom of Speech and Expression as a basic human right in Article 19 confers to this limitations. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “for respect of the rights or reputation of others” or for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.
Freedom of speech may be legally curtailed in some religious legal systems and in secular jurisdictions where it is found to cause religious offense, such as the British Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Last word
The question prevails regarding how free is the freedom of speech and expression and whether or not it enables us to make our decision freely without any restrictions. Its on us at the end to decide whether we want to take it up freely without any restriction or we want to bent low and accept the diktat.
The writer is associated with the prestigious Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi. She owns to herself various articles published in several International and National Magazines, including the prestigious bilingual magazine,Jasodhara. She is also associated with various social organizations such as the World Women Organization,OYSS Women etc.