What is freedom of speech?
It is no wonder with all this buzz about freedom of speech that we stop for a minute to ask ourselves: what exactly is freedom of speech? Who gets to practice is? What are the restrictions to the rule if any? What governs it and who judges what’s ok and what’s not?
We have been ranting for some time now about this issue, but no one stopped to ask these questions or answer the unasked questions for that matter.
Many bloggers from the entire world have been busy posting many a time about what resulted of the alleged freedom of speech or expression, but who gets to say what goes and what doesn’t? Do we even know?
Some questions come to my mind at this point; is there an international standard that governs freedom of expression? Do all countries recognize it and apply it internally and externally? What happens when freedoms conflict or in this case clash? What is a proper reaction or response and who makes it?
Searching over the net; I came across some interesting definitions of the phrase.
Dictionary.com defines it as: “The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
Derechos Human Rights define it as: “Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.”
My favorite Wikipedia defines it as: “Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. Free speech is also supported by international human rights proclamations, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. Opinions vary widely among people different nations and cultures as to when restriction of free speech meets these criteria.”
Going through the different definitions; it is very clear that Freedom of Speech:
1- Is a human right and it is protected.
2- Is perceived differently across the world.
3- Is not unlimited; there are restrictions.
4- Must not defame anyone.
5- Must respect the laws
6- Will be restricted should they aim at destroying anyone’s reputation.
The question here is why don’t they take these rules into consideration when they want to practice their right to speak or express their minds? If you mock or ridicule anyone in the west, they can sue you for defamation and harming their image and reputation, and they will win.
How come it is not ok to mock anyone and it becomes ok to make fun of a prophet? Why do courts accept cases when people sue for defamation and it becomes immature when a whole lot of people find it outrageous to ridicule their prophet; the very symbol of their deep faith?
I previously posted that I am against boycotting and I still am, because I believe that this is not the right way to respond to what happened. A lot are arguing that to each action there must be a reaction, but I say that we should respond in a civilized manner and not be taken by rage or anger.
Sure, we all got offended by the cartoons; they were an insult to all religions and to freedom of speech concept itself, and since they are defending their freedom of speech, then they should accept and respect our right to respond.
It is really sad how it is spreading and moving from one country to another and it is even more tragic that more people are increasing the amount of insults and ridicule only to prove a point that freedom of speech is a sacred right. Well, protecting our reputation and our prophet’s image is also a sacred right and those two rights should not conflict. It all can be solved by each respecting the other and understanding that your freedom range stops the minute you trespass another freedom range; only common sense!!
Don’t boycott them, teach them why it is wrong in the first place … Isn’t that what we are supposed to do as Muslims? To increase awareness about our religion and our prophet? Did we do that?
To read previous comments on this post; please click here
Posted on Wednesday, February 1st, 2006
Under: Around the World, General, Thoughts on my mind | No Comments »
