Freedom of Speech free essay sample

It is a right that should be practiced everywhere in the world, yet some countries in the world don’t. People must live in fear and be afraid to say anything. Only close friends share their opinions because they know it won’t be overheard by someone who will report it to the authorities. They can’t criticize their government when they make important decisions. Not having freedom of expression is holding them back. People have to pretend that everything that is being done by the authorities is splendid. With technology being part of our daily life expressing yourself has become even easier and lets you be heard by so many people. Not everyone but most of the people use social media as a way to connect with friends and colleagues. Websites like Facebook and Twitter are like worldwide public forum where something you say can be heard by hundreds or thousands of people, especially when there’s some heated debated going on about some hot topic. We will write a custom essay sample on Freedom of Speech or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Times like these are when you have to be careful what you say. Yes, it is a great right to express yourself freely but sometimes people forget that what they say can offend others and make them look bad in the long run. Alexandra Wallace is a perfect example. A UCLA student that last year posted a video on YouTube ranting about Asians being disrespectful at the library and using their cellphones. The video became famous within days and with it came the ridicule. Many people on YouTube made reply videos making fun of her. Found her Facebook and sent her threatening messages, emailing her and even calling her phone. A. Wallace withdrew from UCLA couple days later. This is a perfect example where you should think before you say something on social media. That brings up the idea about restricting the freedom of expression. What is the point of restricting it? It is going to be like we don’t have the freedom of expression then. If we do place restrictions, First Amendment should come with an asterisk after it and then you should go to the end of the page and find out what that asterisk means. You will end up reading tons of pages of â€Å"Terms and Conditions† like on some credit card application. Freedom of expression should not come with an asterisk after it; otherwise it should be renamed to something else and not include the word â€Å"freedom† in it. There is nothing â€Å"freedom† about it if there’s going to be restrictions on what and how you can express yourself. Instead, people should be reminded about something called common sense. There are things that are right to talk about and things that are frowned upon by the society. That is where there’s two big differences, when it is frowned upon to talk about something by government and when it is frowned upon by the society. When the government doesn’t want you to talk about something that is when you can face legal actions for what you say. When it is frowned upon by the society, you won’t face legal actions. Yes you may be made fun of but you won’t go to jail for it. You should use common sense and figure it out yourself if what you are about to say will turn out for good or bad. Freedom of Speech free essay sample Freedom of speech Freedom of speech  is the freedom to speak freely without  censorship. The synonymous term  freedom of expression  is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on hate speech.The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a  human right  under Article 19 of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights  and recognized in  international human rights law  in the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law. We will write a custom essay sample on Freedom of Speech or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page It is different from and not to be confused with the concept of  freedom of thought. The right to freedom of speech and expressionConcepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents  and the modern concept of freedom of speech emerged gradually during the  European Enlightenment(Voltaire). England’s  Bill of Rights 1689  granted freedom of speech in Parliament and 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. Article 19 of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, s tates that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional  human rights law.The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the  European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the  American Convention on Human Rights  and Article 9 of the  African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Based on  John Miltons arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects: * the right to seek information and ideas; * the right to receive information and ideas; the right to impart information and ideas. International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the  Internet  or through art forms. This means that th e protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. Relationship to other rights The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (seeLimitations on freedom of speech).The right to freedom of expression is also related to the  right to a fair trial  and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings. As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the  right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved. The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for  media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.However,  freedom of the press  is not necessarily enabling freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that  freedom of the press  is simply a form of  property right  summed up by the principle no money, no voice. Origins and academic freedom Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern  international human rights instruments. It is thought that ancient  Athens’ democratic ideology  of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. [12]  Two of the most cherished values of the  Roman Republic  were freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In  Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the  Rashidun  period by the  caliph  Umar  in the 7th century AD. In the  Abbasid Caliphate  period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph  al-Mamun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to  convert  through reason.According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, the idea of  academic freedom in  universities  was modelled on Islamic custom as practiced in the medieval  Madrasah  system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university in Europe, the  University of Naples Federico II  founded by  Fred erick II, Holy Roman Emperor  in 1224. Starting in medieval times, Muslims began to refer to  Manichaeans,  apostates, pagans, heretics and those who antagonized Islam as zindiqs, the charge being punishable by death. As of the late 8th century the  Abbasid  caliphs  began to hunt down and exterminate freethinkers in large numbers, putting to death anyone on mere suspicion of being a  zindiq. Freedom of speech, dissent and truth Before the invention of the  printing press  a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying out and an elaborate system of censorship and control over  scribes  existed. Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see  print culture).The origins of  copyright law  in most European countries lie in efforts by the  Roman Catholic Church  and governments to regulate and control the output of printers. In 1501  Pope Alexander VI  issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the  Index Expurgatorius, or  List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time . The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of bad books catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which assumed responsibility to control thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines.The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the  Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others it banned or  censored  books written by  Rene Descartes,  Giordano Bruno,  Galileo Galilei,  David Hume,  John Locke,  Daniel Defoe,  Jean-Jacques Rousseau  and  Voltaire. While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of  Bibles  and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly.As a consequence, 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 Miltons response to the  Parliament of Englandsre-introduction of government licensing of  printers, hence  publishers. [25]  Church authorities had previously ensured that Miltons  essay on the right to divorcewas 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. Miltons defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a  Protestantworldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the  Reformation, which would lead to the  enlightenment  of all people. But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression.By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of harmful speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views. As the menace of printing spread, governments established centralised control mechanism. The  French crown  repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet  was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the  British Crownthought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering theStationers Company. The ight to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the  Star Chamber  was chartered to curtail the greate enormities and abuses of dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books. The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the  city of London, which had 53printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the  Netherlands.Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the  Bastille  in Paris before it was stormed in 1789. succession of English thinkers developed the idea of a right to freedom of expression, starting with  John Milton  (1608–74), then  John Locke  (1632–1704) and culminating in  John Stuart Mill  (1806–1873). Locke established the  individual  as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to  life,  liberty,  property  and the  pursuit of happiness.It was the role of  Government  to protect these rights and this belief was first enshrined in the  US Constitution, with the  First Amendment  adding the guaran tee that Congress shall make no law.. . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. John Stuart Mill argued that human freedom is good and without it there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mills  On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.Mill argued that  truth  drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the deep slumber of a decided opinion. Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.In  Evelyn Beatrice Halls biography of  Voltaire, she coined the following phrase to illustrate Voltaires beliefs: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.   Halls quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. In the 20th Century  Noam Chomsky  states that: If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you dont like. Stalin  and  Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If youre in favor of freedom of speech, that means youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Professor  Lee Bollinger  argues that the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters. Bollinger argues that  tolerance  is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example,  genocide.Democracy The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept ofdemocracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency. One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and  democracy  is  Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas.According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt  has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies. Thomas I.Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between  stability  and  change. Freedom of speech acts as a safety valve to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on  revolution. He argues that The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a moral adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus. Emerson furthermore maintains that Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay. Research undertaken by the  Worldwide Governance Indicators  project at the  World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of  governance  of a country. Voice and Accountability within a country, defined as the extent to which a countrys  citizens  are able to participate in selecting their  government, as well as freedom of expression,  freedom of association, and  free media is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries. Social interaction and communityRichard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community. Limitations According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the harm principle or the offense principle, for example in the case of  pornography  or  hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both. 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. In 1985  Joel Feinberg  introduced what is known as the offence principle, arguing that Mills harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others.Feinberg wrote It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other th an the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end.   Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.The Internet and Information Society Jo Glanville, editor of the  Index on Censorship, states that the Internet has been a revolution for  ce nsorship  as much as for free speech. International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the  Internet. [8]  The  Communications Decency Act  (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the  United States Congress  to regulate  pornographic  material on the  Internet. In 1997, in the landmark  cyberlaw  case of  Reno v. ACLU, the  U. S.Supreme Court  partially overturned the law. Judge  Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following: The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse.Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, indecent in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . . ] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication.