Freedom of Expression - Coursework Example

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Introduction In every country, the constitution is an important document that provides the guidelines of how people are supposed to enjoy life in the environment. The constitution is important in defining the boundaries of interaction, as well as how people take part in governance of the country in various ways. Every country has its own special set of rules and regulations that govern the way of life in the social and economic environment as well as other important elements of life. One of the important aspects that the constitution has provided important guidelines on is the freedom of expression. The constitution recognizes the fact that people have opinions, ideas and concepts that they want to express in various ways. For this reason, it offers provisions by which people are supposed to use so that they enjoy this freedom without causing harm to other people. In this understanding, people can freely offer their ideas and opinions without fear of contradiction. Different incidents have been reported about people, whose freedom of speech and expression resulted in great harm to other people and societies. Across the world, many examples exist of how uncontrolled and monitored speech has resulted in various conflicts and wars among communities that had existed harmoniously for a long time. This paper examines the concept of freedom of expression as provided for in the constitutions, exploring the possibilities of whether it can be used in order to reduce and stop hate speech among people and communities. Freedom of expression Freedom of expression, as provided for in the constitution, is also used synonymously with the concept of freedom of speech (Gelber 2011, 61). These rights, is often used to describe the right to communicate one’s ideas and opinions using various ways like body expressions and other properties to any person that is willing and ready to receive. It is important to note that this right, as provided in the constitution also includes any kind of seeking, receipt and impartation of various kinds of ideas and information irrespective of the medium that is used in the process. Every government of the world has certain restrictions to the degree to which people practice their freedom of speech or expression (Pinaire 2008, 23). Some of the common limitations on this right include copyright violation, slander, pornography, incitement, classified information, trade secrets, obscenity, libel among many others that have negative effects and influences to other people receiving the information as target audiences or third parties to it. According to Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the freedom of expression has been given due recognition. Additionally, it has been effectively recognized in the international law of human rights, which is offered in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to the ICCPR, article 19 explains that all people in the country have the freedom to hold and make their opinions and ideas without causing interference and harm to other people. In this case, the freedom includes the right to seeking, receipt and impartation of ideas and information of various types according to the desired function and purpose of that information (Post 2003, 67). This information can be sought irrespective of various kinds of frontiers, whether in oral, print, writing, art and any other forms of media that one may prefer. According to article 19, the practice of these rights comes along with special responsibilities and duties that people are supposed to observe keenly, failure to which can result in a breach of the of this freedom. In this case, special restrictions have been provided constitutionally, so that people can be responsible in their practice of their freedom of expression and speech. Roles of the Freedom of Speech For a very long time, the right of expression has often be understood as the most fundamental element in any democracy (Barendt 2005, 36). The norms used in limiting the freedom of expression in the constitution mean that various kinds of public debates do not have to be suppressed completely, even when the prevailing situations is that of emergency. The proper governance of the aspect of democracy is that which involves self-governance by people. In order for this to work, there has to be a highly informed electorate. For people to have full awareness of this knowledge constraints pertaining the flow of opinions and ideas in a free flow have to be created. The act of democratic governance cannot be practiced effectively if the people start manipulating the electorate through shifting criticism and withholding information. In many instances, the desire and motivation to manipulate ideas and opinions can emerge from the motive of aiming at benefiting the people. Leaders are supposed to ensure that the information they give to the public is that which is beneficial, and can change their lives in the most effective manner. In this case, the people tend to develop confidence in the leadership and the countries begin to develop in various social, economic and political dimensions. In its absence, people lose confidence in the systems of governance, something that threatens the stability of the country or society. In many of the documents written in relation to human rights, the freedom of expression features as one of the most fundamental human right. In this case, it is important to underline from the foregoing discussion that the right to expression is an important cornerstone towards freedom and democratic rights. It is critical in the process of enabling effective functioning of democracy as well as public participation in the decision making process in the country. In a country, citizens cannot effectively carry out their right to vote and other aspects of decision making in public institution if they do not have free access to information and other important elements necessary in the decision making process. Additionally, access to these informational sources is important so that people can freely express their views and opinions towards the governance of their country. Hate speech Hate speech, in many countries, is something that is thought to be outside the constitution, meaning that it is not allowed in a country because of its effects on the security of people and kinds of harm. Hate speech can be described as the speech, which attacks a person or a group of people depending on various attributes like race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other forms. According to the law, hate speech is defined as the speech, conduct or gesture, display or writing that is forbidden since it has the ability to incite and cause violence or various forms of prejudicial actions against or by a certain protected group or individual, or due to the fact that it intimidates or disparages the protected group or individual. The law makes identification of protected individuals or groups through certain special characteristics. In some countries, victims of hate speech often seek redress under criminal or civil law or both of them. A website or online platform that has hate speech is often referred to as a hate site. Most of these sites and platforms often have news and internet forums that puts emphasis on a certain viewpoint. In the past, debate has been cited over how the freedom of speech ahs to apply on websites and other online platforms. Some critics have held that hate speech is a current illustration of newspeak, which is used in the process of silencing the critics of various social policies, which have been implemented poorly in n aim of making them appear ro be politically correct. How the internet perpetuates hate speech The internet, which is a modern development in the world’s information and technology in an inexpensive medium that is unique in many ways (Nunziato 2009, 25). It facilities interaction of people in various parts of the world, in an easy and efficient way, enhancing various systems and practices in the society. For this reason, the internet has been cited as one of the most significant elements that have been used in the process of advancing hate speech. It is important to understand that in as much as the internet can be less intrusive compared to other kinds of media, it often incorporates various elements of broadcast, print and other forms of face-to-face interactions in its process of conveying various messages and information to audiences. Sites that have been market as cyber hate are those that encourage and promote various aspect of online bullying, while they may not necessarily be the instigators of such kinds of activities. Hate-motivated activities can sometimes be linked to the following events, activities or actions. They include the use of words and other kinds of derogative symbols, direct and indirect threats to groups or individuals, circulating or posting of jokes and other kinds of statements that may be demeaning base on various kinds of negative stereotypes among many forms of intimidating information. The target groups The target groups for the information on social media can be varied; this is because, the internet is a universal space where all people can meet and search for information or air their opinions and sentiments. However, in most cases, the target groups involve unprotected groups of people and individuals, the populace and other people that use the internet actively. It is also used to express ideas and opinions on the political class, depending on the various aspects of leadership and governance in the country. In many countries, the internet remains to be an unsecured an unregulated platform upon which people use for various reasons. The information exchanged has continued to vary, prompting the need of development mechanism of how it can be effectively controlled to curb its use in the propagation of hate speech among various groups of people. Initiators of these developments in hate speech It is important to note that people who use the internet for propagating various kinds of information and messages are many. On one hand the users can be individuals that are seeking various kinds of information on issues relating to their social, economic and political aspects. These people often put different kinds of information depending on the ideas they want to express. Journalists and the media are also other active users of the internet as a way of reaching people in various places for their broadcasting. The media has often been called upon to post objective information that does not fuel hate among various groups of people. It is important for them to understand that many people are consumers of information from people in positions of authority like journalists. In different countries, human rights organisations and activist groups have also been cited as elements that play a critical role in using the social media and the internet towards influencing people over various aspects of their interactions. In some countries, these organizations have posted various statements that have amounted to hate speech, prompting civil wars and conflicts. Protesting organisations often use the internet and other forums in the process of raising their concerns and urging people to demonstrate. Their activities have been successful in many instances because the media and internet at large have been good at relating this information. In the future, it is expected that legislations and other developments towards freedom of expression will provide ways in which people will learn to be responsible in their use to reduce and stop incidents of hate speech completely. John Stuart Mills Perspectives on freedom of speech Mills is one of those people whose views have continued to play a leading role in influencing perspectives on freedom of speech and hate speech. According to his analysis, the limits on hate have been found to be very narrow since it is sometimes quite difficult to support the claims that certain kinds of speech causes harm to other people. In many instances, it is sometimes difficult to protect the aspect of free speech in the way it invades the rights of other people (West 2003, 392). According to Mills formulation, the kind of speech that harms other people directly in a manner that is illegitimate has to be banned, and people perpetuating it have to be prosecuted in a court of law. In this case, the government has a duty to investigate and prosecute that use a language that tends to harm other people directly. This can be done by investigating the reactions of people to information that is put forth by these people in the process of their communication, whether it is done on the internet media or in other ways. Mills explains that a great damage is often caused when people happen to suppress their views even when they are false. In this case, it is important that people be allowed to express their views freely. According to Mills, if that view can happen to be controversial as far as hate speech is concerned, then it can elicit three important possibilities (ORourke 2001, 63). First, it is that the view can be true, in the sense that it can be an actual case of hate speech, which needs to be held accountable depending on the extent to which it harms other people directly. Second, the view can be false, such that it may not be having undertones of hate speech that can fuel various kinds of animosity in people. In this case, people perpetuating these kinds of speech may not be held accountable to it. The consumers of the statement may implement the information variedly, depending on how it can be harmful to them. In this regard, it is important to note that people have varying levels of understanding (Lipshultz 2007, 72), which brings the different interpretations of the statement said. Thirdly, the statement said, though it can be false, it may contain some elements of truth. In this case, it may be difficult to derive a straight meaning to it. People have to make a deep analysis of the statement in order to determine the extent of harm that the statement can have on people and other kinds of groups in the community or country at large. Application of Mills Perspectives on hate speech In the light of Mills perspectives many liberal economies have placed various limitations on freedom of expressions and hate speech. However, it remains debatable as to how to justify the kinds of harm that people face as far as hate speech is concerned (Mill 2012, 49). In case prosecution has to be done on the kind of speech that is described as being a hate speech, then the person has to provide sufficient evidence to show that his rights have been violated by that speech directly. According to these understanding by Mills, a person can be termed guilty for an offense is he shows in writing, signs or various visible forms of representation that are threatening, insulting or abusive. This has to be within the sight and hearing of the person that is likely to have caused the distress, alarm or harassment. One of the recent developments in this issue happen in the United Kingdom and involved Fabrice Muamba, who was a professional football player with one of the clubs in London. After Fabrice collapsed in the pitch during a game Stacey Liam mocked the player on his twitter, accounts hurling various racist abuses to people that were responding negatively to the tweet. Liam was later sentenced a 56 day sentence provoking significant comments. Conclusion Freedom of expression, as provided for in various constitution is an important element that enables people to take part in public participation and governance in a country. The right is essential in the creation and maintenance of democratic systems in a country. However, it is important to note that rights often come with responsibilities. For this reason, people are expected to express their freedom of speech in the most responsible manner, and not utter words that can cause harm to other people expressly. The freedom of expression has remained to be one of the most controversial and debatable rights because of its nature. In most cases, the harm caused to people is supposed to be determined definitely, before court action can be taken against people that are purported to perpetuate hate speech. However, the fact that this right is controversial should not make people fear to make their expression or suppress; they should fearlessly express their sentiments so that people can determine their truthfulness or falsehood. Bibliography Barendt, E., 2005. Freedom of Speech, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Gelber, K., 2011. Speech Matters: Getting Free Speech Right, University of Queensland Press, Queensland. Lipshultz, J., 2007. Broadcast and Internet Indecency: Defining Free Speech, Taylor and Francis, London. Magee, J., 2002. Freedom of Expression, Greenwood Press, Westport. Mill D. V. 2012. Freedom of Speech. Retrieved from. < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ > Nunziato, D., 2009. Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, Stanford University Press, Stanford. ORourke, K.C., 2001. John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory, Routledge, London. Pinaire, B., 2008. The Constitution of Electoral Speech Law: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression in Campaigns and Elections, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Post, S.G., 2003. Human Nature and the Freedom of Public Religious Expression, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame. West, C., 2003. “The Free Speech Argument against Pornography”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 33, No. 3: 391–422. Read More