Importance of Freedom of Expression - Essay Example

Freedom of Expression- Is it Absolutely Important or should it be Limited? s 13 March Freedom of Expression- Is it Absolutely Important or should it be Limited? 1.0 Introduction A majority of people today will agree that freedom of expression and speech is quite an important aspect of the development of a more democratic society in the world. Typically, the freedom of expression entails various characteristics such as the freedom of the broadcast media and press to air information be it critical of those in power. Additionally, a society that honours this type of freedom is characterised by an increased liberty by the citizens and the political opponents to air divergent opinions to those of the ones in power without a fear of apprehension. It is through this freedom that the virtue of democracy has spread in most parts of the world today. For example, the UK is widely known and respected around the world as one of the countries that have an increased tolerance of free speech and expression. In fact, the freedom of expression is recognised under the common law although it is clearly provided by European Convention on Human Rights that was adopted as a part of the law in 1998. In this legislation, the freedom of expression is provided to include freedom of spoken word, images, broadcast and other published material and written documents among others. However, there is a limitation that checks various aspects of speech that may invoke or incite violence in the society, for example, hate speech. This paper aims to discuss the freedom of expression, outlining the limits through which citizens in democracies should be allowed as far as the topic is concerned. The discussion will base its arguments on opinions presented by Thomas Hobbes, a British philosopher considered to be the founder and father of modern political philosophy. At the conclusion of the discussion, I will provide my stand on the question “should citizens have an absolute right to the freedom of expression?”. 2.0 The state of the Freedom of expression in the world today As earlier mentioned, the freedom of expression is a concept that outlines the rights of the citizens of a country to freely voice their opinion in public and without any form of fear from punishment or restrictions. Today, this right is preserved under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights while it is also widely recognized under the laws and legislation of most countries in the world today. However, the right is limited in most parts of the world with the level of limitation differing from one country to another. Liberal democracies, for example the one in the UK, has the largest allowance of this right to its citizens while authoritarian forms of government have the lowest. Nevertheless, the freedom of expression in all these democracies have their limitations based on regulations for speech aspects such as obscenities, hate speech and defamation which commonly result with the right. The freedom of expression was adopted as part of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) in 1948. However, unlike most other articles, these article was formulated and presented as a resolution rather than a treaty, meaning that it does not in its entirety legally bind the United Nations members. Today, over 150 countries and jurisdictions around the world abide by this formulation. 3.0 Should Citizens have a robust legal right to the freedom of expression? A Hobbes Approach As earlier mentioned, Thomas Hobbes is considered to be one of the founding fathers of modern political philosophy who did not mince his words in matters concerning the freedom of expression and its limits. As a brief description of this philosopher, he was born in Malmesbury, Wiltshire in England in 1588. During his time, England was going through a period of instability, and this certainly influenced his political opinions and beliefs. Through his political writings, Hobbes attracted a lot of criticism from most parts of the leadership in England which ultimately led to his exile to France in 1640. While in France, he published a widely controversial work (and certainly his most popular) known as Leviathan in 1651. Through this publication, Hobbes invoked an antagonism that offended the English people living in France especially the churchmen. This forced him to go back to England where he died in 1679. Hobbes published other works such as De Cive (1642), De Homine (1658) and Behemoth (1680) (Van Mill 2001). In his opinion of general freedom and liberty, Hobbes believed that a large mass of dissent opinions are harmful to the peace and harmonious existence of people in a society. In his Leviathan publication, Hobbes states that an appointed sovereign body (power) should be put in place through the power of the subjects. The subjects should then submit their wishes and wills to the power in a manner that suggests that the power has close to absolute authority over the opinions of the subject henceforth (Hobbes & Tuck 2002). The Leviathan proceeds to outline various types of powers that the sovereign enjoys, with one of them outlining Hobbes opposition of the freedom of speech. In that guideline, he directs that everyone in the society should consent with the commonly accepted societal guidelines. Additionally, he claims that once the people grant the sovereign body the powers to make the rules, then they (people) have no option other than obey those rules. According to him, this is the people’s choice and as long as the body rightfully got into the power position through an approval by the people, the actions taken by the sovereign body should stand. Hobbes, therefore, describes freedom as the ability to make a decision regarding the choice of the sovereign powers to whom the rest of the society obeys. The sovereign body should henceforth have the liberty to take actions that it deems best for the welfare of the society. In doing this, the power body will have to avoid entertaining various dissenting opinions from the general society as this can be dangerous towards the harmonisation and pacification processes of the society. In summary, Hobbes had the opinion that people are given the freedom to choose who leads them. After that is completed, the chosen body (sovereign power) had to be the one making the rules and communicating them while also taming the dissenting opinions and voices among the public. 4.0 Expected Response by Hobbes on the Statement “Citizens should be entitled to a robust legal right to the freedom of expression” Having outlined Hobbes stand and belief on the freedom and liberty that citizens and the general society should enjoy, the discussion will attempt to craft the expected response that the philosopher would probably give towards the statement “Citizens should be entitled to a robust legal right to the freedom of expression”. An analysis of this statement will depict that it calls for an infinite and a limitless provision of rights (full) towards the freedom of expression by the citizens in a country. This means that the citizens should be allowed to speak out anything they deem right and without fearing a reprimand or any other form of punishment for their actions from the body governing them. For example, criticism of the government and various modes of airing grievances and opinions such as demonstrations and public strikes could be allowed in such a scenario. This according to Hobbes may not be his opinion for a number of reasons. First, Hobbes championed for a situation where the governing body had all the rights to make the rules and guidelines upon which the subjects were obliged to follow. According to him, the subjects harboured no rights to judge the orders and directions presented by the sovereign power and thus were only left with the option to obey to these rules. This notwithstanding the probability of a misuse of these powers in outlining the guidelines since the subjects had the opportunity to make wise decisions in choosing who their power body are. To him, making the choice on who the sovereign power comprises is the sure way of exercising the freedom of expression. In this light, the citizens should avoid at all cost disputing the sovereign power in a manner that demeans or portray the sovereign representatives as evil. Additionally, the subjects should refrain from making attempts of affecting any form of governmental changes that the sovereign power wishes to make (Gauthier 1969). Also, according to Hobbes, the subjects should also desist from acting in a manner that shows how much they wish to replicate the success of other nations as compared to theirs. In all these implications, the baseline is that the subjects (citizens) should be contented with what the government is doing while also avoiding criticising or airing divergent opinions that may incite the rest in the society (Schmitt & Schwab 2008). In summary, therefore, Hobbes would clearly reject the statement “Citizens should be entitled to a robust legal right to the freedom of expression”. He would seek to convince the public and all stakeholders involved that such freedom without limitation would only lead to an unregulated society that would consequently not live in harmony and the much-needed peace. 5.0 My Take on the statement “Citizens should be entitled to a robust legal right to the freedom of expression” Having discussed the topic of the freedom of expression and Hobbes stand on the same, I will present my opinion on how this form of freedom should be handled. First, I would want to state that freedom of expression is a very important part of the human rights today and, which should be greatly respected. However, I have my own reservations as well on how much room this freedom should be allowed if the society and the world at large are to enjoy the benefits that come with it. 5.1 Reasons why the freedom of expression is important As earlier mentioned, I understand how much the freedom of expression is to the world today. As such, here are several of the key reasons why it is important; It enables making of sound decisions that incorporate inputs from various quarters- freedom of expression is important in allowing people in a society to provide opinions and other contributions towards making decisions that affect the society in general. In the contemporary world, this means that governments allowing inputs from its publics becomes better placed at settling at decisions that are widely acceptable among its subjects. Additionally, the freedom of expression is considered to be one of the most important political right that is available to citizens in a country. Without it, citizens may not be capable of raising alarm on important societal issues such as injustices and oppression. Also, other public input and activities such as elections would probably lack the necessary meaning. However, in as much as I find it important that the freedom of speech is withheld, I am also of the opinion that necessary limitations be put in place as this provides the much-needed modesty and governability of the citizens in a country. In short, there should exist some restrictions that are important in facilitating management of the mode in which citizens interact and communicate in the society in regard to their government. 5.2 Reasons for limitation of the freedom of speech In cases where some expression is targeted at offending a particular group or culture, for example, a religion, such should be restricted since it might lead to more harm than the truth it might be serving. Additionally, some the expressions might only serve to insult, degrade or defame other people’s reputation for no real good reasons. In such a case, these hateful expressions should be censored and limited to avoid unsettling the harmony in a society. 6.0 Conclusion The freedom of speech is a key and vital aspects in human rights that should be highly respected. According to Hobbes, freedom of expression should be limited, and the sovereign power should control it instead. However, I find it necessary that a balance is achieved between providing the citizens the freedom while also limiting a few aspects that might lead to loss of harmony in the society. In summary, I may not agree in its entirety Hobbes stand on the freedom of expression although I consent with his call for a limitation of the right. Bibliography Gauthier, D. P. (1969). The logic of Leviathan: the moral and political theory of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford, Clarendon P. Hobbes, T., & Tuck, R. (2002). Leviathan. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. Schmitt, C., & Schwab, G. (2008). The Leviathan in the state theory of Thomas Hobbes: meaning and failure of a political symbol. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Van Mill, D. (2001). Liberty, rationality, and agency in Hobbess Leviathan. Albany, State University of New York Press. Read More