Most constitutions voice the right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the making of any law that “abridges the freedom of speech.” Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." This while Article 65 of the 2014 Egyptian Constitution states: “Freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed. All individuals have the right to express their opinion through speech, writing, imagery, or any means of expression and publication."
That is even if it may entail hate speech: "As a nation we have chosen a different course‚ to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," US Chief Justice Roberts says.
It seems that freedom of speech trumps everything else. But is this freedom really absolute and unconditional? Can freedom of speech go as far as the speaker wants: alluding to criminal behaviour, obscenity, or pornography? How about inciting harm? Threatening others? Provoking lies or indecency?
This is where the fine line between freedom of speech and unacceptable speech, often considered hate speech, gets blurry.
Indeed, the question becomes more poignant today in the age of social media. This vehicle, social media, has radically changed communication, allowing us to say what we please. A mere sentence on Twitter, a simple photograph on Facebook, or an uploaded video on YouTube, and the initiator ubiquitously and instantly reaches an even wider target audience than planned. Very little remains private.
However, a free world where one says what one pleases it is not. One has a right to speak his/her mind but must be privy to the rights of others, too.
Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities clearly identifies the restrictions. “You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”
The same goes with Twitter: “You may not engage in targeted abuse or harassment.
YouTube is the most allowing: “you may be exposed to Content that is inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable.”
The examples of curtailed speech are everywhere. Former advisor and campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Professor Tom Flanagan, of the University of Calgary, met with fury and disgust after he stated, in an academic environment mind you, “What’s wrong with child pornography — in the sense that it’s just pictures?” The Wildrose Party, which he was about to run its election campaign for, denounced him, and he was fired from his job as a commentator on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Another example is seen in all anti-Semitic slur speeches and comments. In Canada, David Ahenakew, a once-powerful leader of the Assembly of First Nations, was stripped of his Order of Canada for remarks about Jews.
Ernst Zundel, a German who lived in Canada for 40 years, had denied the Holocasust happened. He was also deported to Germany when "... a Federal Court judge ruled he was a threat to national security." He served five years in a German prison.
And when Alaa Sadek of Al Jazeera says, “Any officer who killed a civilian deserves an immediate death. The names and faces of these officers are known, and their addresses are known, too. Retribution must follow. It is time revolutionists seek revenge against these criminals,” it is hate speech. Alaa Sadek will probably never put his foot in Egypt again. Surprisingly he remains free in Qatar.
Anti-Islamic cartoons, movies and speeches face the same reaction, or Muslims hope they would be met with same.
A very current event occurred on an Egyptian TV channel when the host, Reeham Said, kicked out the atheist guest, Dr. Noha, after she slighted Prophet Mohamed. Said knew all along that the guest was an atheist, but what she couldn’t tolerate was the slurring.
When Egyptians say that freedom of speech is a right, they have to understand that rights have limits. No right is absolute; and neither is freedom of speech. At a certain point, the rest of the society will put its foot down and say enough is enough. Then the speaker may find himself in an awkward incriminating position. Whether we as citizens like it or not, censorship and restrictions we create ourselves or others create for us exist.
No, absolute freedom of speech is a fallacy.
Comments