Freedom of Speech: Does it really exist?

-

The concept of freedom of speech seems to have a universal value. The United Nations, for example, recognises freedom of speech as one of the universal human rights. Many countries particularly the western nations also view freedom of speech as a fundamental human right which cannot be denied to any individual by their government. An analysis of the concept of freedom of speech, however, shows that the term is an illusion.

Let us start by considering the meaning of the word “freedom” in the phrase freedom of speech. The term freedom refers to unrestricted use of something or the state of not being subject to or affected by something. In this context, freedom of speech means an unrestricted use of speech. Do we have the ability to express all our views unrestricted? The simple answer is no.

Our freedom of speech is curtailed when it comes to official secret acts. Official secret acts refer to deeds sanctioned by the state and committed on behalf of the state. As their name suggests, official secret acts are concealed from the public and only agents of the state can be aware of them.

It is unlawful for a state agent or any person to leak the official secret acts. The recent case of Edward Snowden regarding the secret US surveillance operations clearly demonstrates this point. Any agent who leaks the official secret acts including Mr Snowden cannot rely on the defence of the freedom of speech. He or she can expect to face prosecution and a possible lengthy jail term.

Freedom of expression also cannot be relied upon as a defence for hate speech. Hate speech is considered to be an expression that can incite people to violence or has the potential to cause violence or discord among different communities. It includes expression such as an anti-Semitic statement which means hostility to or prejudice against the Jews. Like the official secret acts, there are provisions for hate speech in the legal systems of all the countries around the world.

Further limitation of freedom of speech is related to defamation. There are two forms of defamation. Libel refers to the publication of false statement which is capable of damaging a person’s reputation. Slander refers to the crime of spoken statement which has the potential to damage a person’s reputation. The court can fail to admit the defence of freedom of speech made by the defendant in a defamation case.

With these examples, it is evident that freedom of speech does not exist. Therefore, there should be a re-examination of the concept to identify the appropriate term for the right of expression. Before that happens, I will suggest that the current freedom of speech be renamed to some freedom of speech.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spanish Dog Fouling Law: Are Spanish Politicians Pursuing The Wrong Agenda?

-
Image
 Dog fouling Spain has some of the strictest laws regarding pets possession in Europe. One of its laws governing animal possession in Spain, for example, bans having exotic creatures as pets and requires dog, cat and ferret owners to declare their animals to the authority within three months of bringing them into the country. Until recently, however, Spain has no law nor sanction for failure to clean up after dog fouling in public places. It was up to dog owners whether to clean up such mess. This has now changed following the introduction of the dog fouling law. The new law states that the fine for any person failing to clean up after his or her dog fouling in a public place such as a park or kids play ground should be 1500 euros. The rationale for this legislation is to deter dog owners from leaving their dogs messing up public places such as parks. Regular visitors to parks can testify how the sight of such dog foul can be an eyesore. However, asking dog owners wh
Read more

Social Media Networks: Calls For Tighter Regulations

-
One of the most fascinating technological inventions of the twenty first century is the development of social media networks such as YouTube, Twitter, and Face book. These social media networks make it possible for people to meet new people and make friends, locate old friends and family members, or to form a relationship that can result in marriage. They also provide a platform in the form of advertising for conducting businesses. Despite these benefits provided by the social media networks certain things can go awfully wrong on the networks. The most recent example of how the social media network can be turned into a weapon of criminality is the case last week involving threatening rape and murder messages sent to a number of British women on Twitter. Feminists are attempting to use this incident to rally for support for tighter regulations on activities being conducted within social media networks. Is it possible to control activities within these networks? Having legislat
Read more

Marketing Tricks: How Many Times Have You Fallen Victim?

-
Image
 Fat free food Whereas business owners call them marketing strategies, none business owners regard them as marketing tricks. Regardless of what you like to call them, businesses cannot survive without marketing tricks. Marketing tricks are the flywheel that keeps businesses engine running. We tend not to be concerned about them because of our perception that we are familiar with them and can avoid them. However, a careful look at the marketing tricks used by businesses will reveal that many of us have fallen victims of them in the past and can still fall victim of the malpractice in future. Let us consider two of these popular tricks used in supermarkets. The first marketing trick used by retailers is relating to the slogan “75% reduced fat”. Items labelled 75% reduced fat are often displayed on supermarket shelves. Some of us who are conscious of our health tend to go for them to avoid consuming excess fat. Excess fat in the body is considered to be a risk factor for
Read more