The Lack of Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Freedom of Speech The article “In U.K., freedom of speech and press hang in the balance” focuses on the lack of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. According to the article, British authorities have been “fiendishly prosecuting individuals merely for what they say on social media services such as Twitter and Facebook” (“In the U.K.”). This is a new concept because the British version of “freedom of speech” is actually more like a “restriction of speech” considering that more than 1,286 people were charged with using speech that is defined as abusive although it is not confirmed whether this information from electronic communications indeed actually legally qualify as abusive speech. In short, the concept is a wake-up call for the public to react against such laws that define “freedom of speech” in a context that actually severely restricts it. The popular definition of “freedom of speech” is saying whatever one wants as long as this is based on the truth and, for criticisms, as long as it is based on something reasonable. Moreover, this popular definition allows “freedom of speech” to extend to harsh criticisms as long as it is based on the truth and on reason, and as long as it does not use any vulgar expressions. Nevertheless, despite such a sane definition, the British government has actually redefined the term in the harshest, most cruel and most prejudiced terms possible. The chosen concept – the false definition of “freedom of speech” invented by the British government – may influence or change people’s lives in such a way that it can wake them up to the real truth behind the issue. The concept plays a critical role in everyday life because people are actually confused by the definition of “freedom.” Freedom may be absolute like saying whatever one wants using any word whether vulgar or not. Freedom may also be restricted to speech that is, according to the British government, must not be anything from abusive to racist. On the other hand, from this issue, one can think that freedom is something in between these two previously mentioned extremes – something that is actually reasonable, sane, logical and most of all – consistent with the meaning of freedom. This is the lesson that people should not overlook in the discussion of this issue of freedom of speech. It is important to have an adequate and appropriate understanding of the concept of “freedom of speech” because this freedom is what defines freedom as a whole. Knowledge of freedom actually introduces one to the concept of human rights, which is a basic legal and political principle. This means that it is imperative to know that it is all right to have freedom but one should use this freedom with responsibility. Nevertheless, although people express themselves in many ways like art or music, speech remains to be the most common and most accessible freedom that one can exercise since it is basic for all human beings to speak. Thus, from the article, the reader will be forced to react to the idea that the British government’s definition of free speech is actually a violation of freedom itself. According to the definition of free speech by the British government, it is speech that is “abusive, insulting, distressing, indecent, likely to cause a breach of the peace, racist, meant to incite religious hatred, seditious, obscene, defamatory, [and] scandalous” (“In the U.K.”). This definition somehow implies that the only possible “free speech” is one that is positive and one that praises someone because after all, any criticism can be judged as “abusive” or “insulting” unless there are very specific, detailed criteria for each adjective description. The definition of free speech by the British government is actually very restrictive of any speech. What is more unfair about it is that it somehow judges all possible types of opinion. Normally, people express their negative sentiments about what is unfair, what is ugly or what is not appropriate – yet these may all be labeled as “abusive” or “insulting.” People may also mistakenly mention terrorists and associate them with Islam, and people may criticize a particular group of Chinese people and associate them with China in general. No matter how unintentional these associations are, these may already be misjudged by the British government as something that violates the law on freedom of speech. The concept of false definition of free speech therefore teaches the reader that the true meaning of free speech is one that adheres to the meaning of freedom and not that of restriction. Britain is therefore indirectly banning free speech. In fact, any criticism can be judged as “abusive” or “insulting” unless there are very specific, detailed criteria for each adjective description. This is a concern because the British government unjustly labels as “abusive” or “insulting” even those opinions which are supposed to be expressed in the social networking media. The social networking media may be a public area and is definitely a place where a lot of people can see one’s post but the point is that one’s timeline or account is still one’s personal space. Therefore, unless the post clearly specifies a person’s complete name and identity, then it must be perfectly all right. Thus, free speech – only in the social media setting –makes it OK for anyone to say anything about what he thinks of a particular government, religion, country, family, institution or group. The social media individual account is clearly one’s free space and should therefore be respected as such. After all, it is better to vent out in the social media than to turn this violence into something physical. Thus, freedom of speech in the social media is considered a little better than physically killing one’s subject of this free speech. In short, abusive speech is better than actual physical abuse. However, when this freedom of speech is exercised in other ways that can be abusive and not anymore in the context of the social media – such as announcing bad publicity about a specific individual or religion on stage or distributing it through the website or through flyers, it must already be punishable by law. Moreover, another problem with the British law involving freedom of speech is that it does not consider human nature. This is also another lesson that one can learn from this issue. This means that with such a definition of free speech, the British government does not consider the fact that all human beings are actually critical by nature, or at least reactive to stimuli in their environment. It is therefore normal to think that a human being would react positively to positive stimuli, and would react negatively to negative stimuli, in the same way that all living things do. A human being is neither a robot nor a machine that is programmed to react otherwise. A human being – a sane and reasonable one – is actually a being that reacts in proportion to the strength of the stimulus that provokes him or her. It means that some reactions may be unavoidably insulting, abusive or scandalous depending on the strength of the stimulus. Clearly, the British government has not considered this. Thus, this issue is indeed a wake-up call for all the readers of the article, for them to realize the concept of freedom of speech – especially what it is not and what it is exactly. Still, another problem with the freedom of speech as defined by the British government is that it does not respect the idea of personal privacy. If Facebook and Twitter are simply constantly being monitored for messages deemed defamatory by the British government, then there is absolutely no use for the username and the password as well as the encryption settings for these accounts. This also implies that other things aside from violations of freedom of speech are also being constantly monitored by the government. This is therefore tyranny at its subtlest form. Moreover, this is actually a case against the British government itself for prying into the private affairs and private personal discussion of people. This is another lesson that the public can learn from the analysis of the concept of freedom of speech. One more problem with the definition of free speech is that it somehow does not only falsely accuse someone but also falsely assumes that one is a potential criminal. According to the article, even alleged “possession of information that could be used by a terrorist or even imagining the death of a monarch” are classified as unlawful by the British government (“In the U.K.”). This means that although one has only imagined something dreadful, which no one would think is possible in real life, like a nine-year-old imagining the death of the Prime Minister, the British government already condemns this as unlawful. This definition of free speech therefore instills fear on virtually anyone who uses even just the conditional clause – If…. If someone says, “If I were to have a gun, I would kill the Prime Minister.” This is a valid, imaginary statement especially if posted on Facebook by someone who is just as young as seven. Nevertheless, the rather paranoid British government would rather convict the child than entertain thoughts of impossibility. Still, another problem with the definition of free speech by the British government is that it does not consider the consequences of such restrictions. The more the government restricts people, the more rebellious they become. If freedom of speech is therefore restrained and restricted, then others would think that perhaps what the government wants is actual violence. If someone would be convicted for slandering a black American over Facebook, then perhaps others would think it would just be better to kill one. At least, either way, one still goes to jail. From the concept of the false definition of free speech by the British government and from the issue itself of freedom of speech, one can learn that governments may sometimes be tyrannical and prejudiced towards citizens. One can also learn that the social media is actually being exposed to constant government monitoring. Moreover, one can learn that the British government and perhaps a few others do not actually support freedom of speech. This article and this issue therefore open the eyes of the reader to the true prejudice that exists in society – the prejudice of the government against the people themselves. From this one learns that perhaps this is the reason behind unjust convictions in this world. Moreover, for those who may be able to think more deeply, one should understand by now why people continue to have resentment and why they sometimes resort to violence. The reason is clear – they are not given the freedom that every human being is supposed to have. Lastly, the best thinkers who have reflected on this concept would rather think that perhaps the best way to change society for the better is to reach a middle ground between how the government defines free speech and how free speech is supposed to be for every human being. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited "In U.K., freedom of speech and press hang in the balance." The New American 21 Jan. 2013: 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. Read More