Freedom of Speech: Rights and Restrictions

by Mohammad Gani from USA
August 17, 2011

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1659/freedom-of-speech-rights-and-restrictions

A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard advertisement, saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights. The sign shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant and the text reads, "This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby if the mother had decided to not killing our child!" Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of her privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed. But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

An intense controversy surrounded with a German Court's decision that a "bumper sticker" displaying "Soldiers are Murderers" is constitutionally protected, just as it would be under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Then Vice Chancellor Helmut Kohl was furious and outraged with this Court decision and said, "We can not and must not stand by it while our soldiers are placed on the same level as criminals". But a German Newspaper made different comments saying, "In a democracy, criticism of war and the military is naturally not forbidden. But among reasonable people, it must be done in a civilized way and not with brutal insults like Murderers". The Judge in the case that said he regretted having to decide as he did; but complained that the earlier decisions of the Constitutional Court were steadily placing freedom of speech ahead of protection of people's honor. This event clearly shows that hate speech occurs at many different targets, not just only racial groups. But it was unclear whether and in what form hate speech should be censored if any at all!

Freedom of Speech is important for various reasons; it is of paramount importance in a democratic society, for an efficient and just government. "Free and Fair" democratic election can not be conducted or secured unless candidates are free to debate and criticize each other's policies nor can government be run efficiently unless corruptions and other abuses can be exposed by a free press and other news media. There are other important elements too in which Freedom of Speech provides required preconditions for the protection of other's rights and therefore for equal justice. Free and open debate about the nature and limits of other rights to privacy, religion, equal treatment are essential if our society is to reach sound and fair decisions about when and how those other rights must be defined and respected. However, we can not expect sound political deliberation and decision about rights without securing and enjoying freedom of speech.

Having said that; imagine, if 150 million people of Bangladesh minus one person were in one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion; then say, if 150 million people would not be justified in silencing that only one person's opinion, than that one person, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing 150 million people! Thus, should silencing that individual's opinion construe "taking away" his rights of free speech? Obviously it shall cause "personal" injury to that one person only; thus would make differences whether the injury was inflicted on only one person, on few persons or on many. But is it any fair to silence that one person opinion at all and why?

Many of us, in general believe that there should be a moral, ethical and legal limit on what we want to say, wherever we want to say and the way we want to say? The most fundamental question thus immediate arises; "Should there be any moral and/or legal limits at all on our views those we wish to express publicly? The truth is that we are never justified in silencing of an opinion even the opinion is patently false or has no merit. But this statement is "never absolute". Probably, we could set control "when and how" someone expresses an opinion. If the opinion is expressed at a time, at a place or the way it is expressed that it is likely to harm another physically; fomenting or prompting aggressive attack to that person, then we "legitimately" can constrain that free speech. In all other situations, restricting speech is inappropriate including "harmless verbal attack" sounding even personal level for "logical" reasons.

Now, is it by any means legitimate to restrict speeches when it visibly harms others either? We find only few people openly denounce free speech and many value with idolatrous attention; but why? There could be 2 possible reasons; like psychological and logical in nature. The psychological one is very simple; never underestimate the "power of self deception"! These people strongly believe that they are the true advocates and promoters of free speech but strangely seek every available tool and opportunity to squelch speeches they dislike. They are blind to what they think, what they do, why they do it and the way they do it!

The logical argument is a little comprehensive and critical; it comprises "when" free speech is appropriate and "when is not". Many agree that we need to suppress speeches only when those harms others, but then again the same people have different opinion on "exactly when" free speech actually does harm to others resulting incipient disagreement or conflict on timing when a free speech can actually be restricted. The criteria of defining "harms" also has its own differentiating problems that brings the issue of ethics and morality, inviting ethical and moral disagreement. For example "hate messages/speeches" against any race and groups or of religious beliefs etc., could cause expressive harms and thus should be restricted, is not always absolute.

Having said all these, we must recognize that the liberation of blacks in South Africa out of Apartheid and those here in USA, liberations/freedom of many new nations from colonial powers, fall of totalitarian Governments, liberation of women ...were achieved and only came out through the barrel of Freedom speech. So, where do we exactly stand on Rights of Free Speech? Reconnoitring all the available variables of rights of free speech, could we ever reach to an ultimate conclusion of any kind?

Related Topics:  Bangladesh News receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list