Does Freedom of Speech and Expression exist?

[Arrowhead]

I've been playing around with this topic for some time and it has been a while since I last debated it. So I was wondering what you guys think? Do you think Freedom of Speech truly exists or is it curtailed in those respects where it matters most?

One of the true expressions of self that I believe exists in our world is artistic expression. But when I read about the vicious attack on Andrew Serrano's Piss Christ and the way people acted out because of it, it seems as though we are intent on drowning out those voices that do not agree with our own. Of course there is a titular argument that "You can scream, but I will scream louder." Serrano was free enough to unveil his work and the hardcore Catholic protestors expressed their freedom of speech when they gave death threats to the museum curator and guards in France in the name of Jesus Christ!

We often espouse that individuals are entitled to their views, those views can be argued for and against in a calm, rational manner. Serrano's work presented his view on a particular idea, if one disagrees with it, fine, perfectly natural and acceptable. But then why go ahead and deface it at a museum? That's invasion of another's property. Why is it so necessary to stifle another's expression just because one disapproves of it?

As we move on we see novel restrictions being placed on the freest means of media today: the internet. With this new law from the Tennessee government, there is a direct contravention of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. While I understand that the internet needs to be moderated because illegal piracy (downloading from Limewire, Bearshare, etc) is rampant, minors are in chat rooms and on porn sites, the list goes on; how do those fears translate to such a breach of a natural right granted to all citizens? What makes matters worse is that this law is one of the most ambiguous I've read in a while whereby images that "frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress," forms the bulk of this new tort. One of the biggest challenges in the legal system, especially when dealing with claims for torts, is the likelihood of "emotional distress." This law has not made clear what "emotional distress" means? Does it mean that there has to be psychiatric proof that viewing the image has obfuscated the claimant to the point that he/she should be allowed to hold the defendant liable? Or is mere indignation and resultant anger sufficient to ensure a standing claim? What of the idea that "emotional distress" can be triggered by varying causes? The contextual obscurity and brevity of the law is troubling.

What of this scenario: The defendant is an out and proud homosexual in a backwards Tennessee town, his life is hard enough. He posts a picture on Facebook of him kissing his boyfriend. Someone sees that picture and is so nauseated by this open (though chaste) expression of homosexuality that he is "emotionally distressed" by displaying anger at the people in the picture, which results in paranoia and anxiety towards those around him. His condition leads him to having to take pills to keep control over his anxiety for he was so greatly distressed by this image. Does he have a claim against the defendant to compensate him in some form for his distress? The horrifying aspect of this scenario is that no matter how slim, the claimant actually has a case to argue, even though it will be kicked out of court. This new law allows his "emotional distress" to be heard and will at the very least, make the defendant remove any and all 'inappropriate' pictures of him. Even if the defendant is not ordered to perform the nominal act (seeing as this scenario is rather extreme), he will most definitely be wary of posting similar pictures in the future, in all probability. That's a direct impingement of his freedom to express himself as he pleases while not intending to harm another person.

In India, there was a case of a man named Satyendra Dubey who was working on one of the most prestigious projects for infrastructure development at the time. When he noticed irregularities in supplies and clear corruption on all levels in the project, he chose to speak up about it. He didn't realise that the corruption spread to a level much higher than he could've imagined. He was killed soon after. His sealed letter to the Prime Minister arrived with the seal broken and the contents clearly rifled through. He paid the dearest cost for exercising his freedom of speech that too to do what was right. Clearly this sheds light upon the huge problem of corruption in India, but it also shows that the Everyman's freedom of speech is severely restricted. He can speak freely so long as his speech is not inflammatory as it were.

Of course the fact that I am on this website and being able to initiate this discussion is a clear expression of my freedom of speech, but that's not the question I want to ask you. What I want to know is, when it really comes down to it - like in the cases of Satyendra Dubey, or possible victims of the new Tennessee law, or Andrew Serrano and the breached French museum - do we really have the complete freedom to express ourselves? We cannot be shielded from criticism and even hate, they are natural outcomes of having an opinion, but can the dissenting voice of a Catholic Church or indeed, a government, be so strong that it blots out an individual's freedom entirely?

What do you think?

Arrowhead.

[Keel]

The word ‘freedom’ is a tricky one because it relates to so many different aspects that it is hard to determine which context the word ‘freedom’ is used in. Because of this, I think it is important to differentiate between being free to express your views and being free from the consequences of how you express your views. Secondly, there is a difference between the right to express and the will to express. Both the words ‘right’ and ‘will’ are often used in connection to the word freedom, but there is a clear difference. I will try to put forward these ideas in the context of your post.

One of the true expressions of self that I believe exists in our world is artistic expression. But when I read about the vicious attack on Andrew Serrano's Piss Christ and the way people acted out because of it, it seems as though we are intent on drowning out those voices that do not agree with our own. Of course there is a titular argument that "You can scream, but I will scream louder." Serrano was free enough to unveil his work and the hardcore Catholic protestors expressed their freedom of speech when they gave death threats to the museum curator and guards in France in the name of Jesus Christ!

We often espouse that individuals are entitled to their views, those views can be argued for and against in a calm, rational manner. Serrano's work presented his view on a particular idea, if one disagrees with it, fine, perfectly natural and acceptable. But then why go ahead and deface it at a museum? That's invasion of another's property. Why is it so necessary to stifle another's expression just because one disapproves of it?

This example is useful in pointing out the difference between being free to express your ideas and being free from the consequences of the process in which you convey your ideas. Andrew Serrano certainly had the freedom to create the piece of art work; however, he was not free from the consequences of his actions which were to cause distress among Catholics. Similarly, the Catholic protesters had the freedom to voice out their displeasure via vandalism, but they were not free from the consequences (which was to infringe upon other peoples right and property). The main question here is ‘is anyone ever free to act if they can never be free from the consequences of their actions?’ You seem to take the position that it is impossible to be completely free, and to a certain extent I agree with you. However, as I stated in the beginning, there is a difference between right and will. After reading the following, it may appear that neither parties had the 'right' to express their vies as it infringed on other peoples 'rights'.

The right to do something is a grant of freedom by authority (whether it be the law, society, a head of state ect.). The will to do something is the freedom granted by one’s self according to one’s ability. Hence, there are two freedoms; an external one granted and an internal one which needs initiation. Let us use the example of Satyendra Dubey.

In India, there was a case of a man named Satyendra Dubey who was working on one of the most prestigious projects for infrastructure development at the time. When he noticed irregularities in supplies and clear corruption on all levels in the project, he chose to speak up about it. He didn't realise that the corruption spread to a level much higher than he could've imagined. He was killed soon after. His sealed letter to the Prime Minister arrived with the seal broken and the contents clearly rifled through. He paid the dearest cost for exercising his freedom of speech that too to do what was right. Clearly this sheds light upon the huge problem of corruption in India, but it also shows that the Everyman's freedom of speech is severely restricted. He can speak freely so long as his speech is not inflammatory as it were.

We can easily see that Satyendra Dubey had the will to report the corruption. However, he did not have the right to do so. You may say well he was legally in the right to report the issue. Yes, he had legal right to report but he did not have the social right to do so. The norms of society create implicit rights and when the authority of social norms is greater than the authority of the law (as in many countreis where the legislative branch is weak), it may be, as in this example, that certain legal rights are actually non-existent in terms of social norms. Going back to will, Dubey certainly had the choice of whether to report or not. You said that he did not know of the degree of corruption. Had he been aware that certain powerful men were also involved would he still have proceeded? He had the choice to choose whether to report or not without such knowledge, he also would have had the choice to choose with such knowledge. Thus one’s will is a pure indication of one’s freedom as it is only restricted by one’s abilities (physical, emotional ect.). We have the ultimate freedom, in terms of will, to act as we please as long as we are physically and mentally capable of doing so.

You are forever free to fantasise about the girl of your dreams in anyway you wish within the realm of your consciousness, the freedom of thought is forever given. You are also free to physically rape her if you have the will to do so. But it is very unlikely that you have the right; that is the restriction of ‘freedom’, freedom which is granted. So to answer the question, it is only possible to have 'true freedom’ of expression if you have both the ‘will’ to express it and the ‘right’ to express it.

[Sandwich]

Of course the fact that I am on this website and being able to initiate this discussion is a clear expression of my freedom of speech, but that's not the question I want to ask you. What I want to know is, when it really comes down to it - like in the cases of Satyendra Dubey, or possible victims of the new Tennessee law, or Andrew Serrano and the breached French museum - do we really have the complete freedom to express ourselves? We cannot be shielded from criticism and even hate, they are natural outcomes of having an opinion, but can the dissenting voice of a Catholic Church or indeed, a government, be so strong that it blots out an individual's freedom entirely?

I have to say, I didn't reply to this topic at first because it seems to me more a debate/discussion of knowledge as opposed to of principles.

I mean yeah technically the dissenting voice of the Catholic Church can be so strong that it blots out a person's freedom of expression. Both directly and also even indirectly - for instance in the UK in the past year or two there's been a massive scandal about Catholic priests who have turned out to be sexual perverts and they use their status and role in society to effectively stamp out the freedom of expression of victims. It's a cultural and societal thing that (until recently) you couldn't call out a "man of god" simply because their role made them immune.

There are plenty of instances where freedom of speech and expression are in fact harmful as opposed to inviolable rights. For instance owning child pornography and inciting racial or religious hatred. In the UK there are laws specifically to prevent hatred being spread and to try to curb things like religious extremism. Both of these are technically restrictions of an individual's freedom of speech and expression which are not necessarily harmful - obviously the person creating the child pornography has participated in something very harmful and mentally damaging, but the person subsequently owning it is technically not causing harm to anybody, and the religious extremist won't necessarily be the man or woman who straps a bomb to themselves and tries to murder innocent people. They might just have slightly crazy views but not act on them.

However I personally am in favour of them both. I think that it's just the way of a society where people have to live together in at least some semblance of harmony in order to coexist peacefully that people can't go around doing whatever the hell they want, or saying whatever the hell they want. For instance somebody inciting hatred against Poles in the UK deserves a kick in the nuts. A note of disapproval but ultimately the right to keep doing so in the name of free speech is not at all an appropriate response to racism. In my opinion. A society which tolerates behaviour like that is not going to remain a cohesive society for very long.

So I think they do exist, but with boundaries and limitations that in some cases I see as a necessary thing. Clearly things like corruption and destruction to prevent free speech are wrong and one hopes they wouldn't happen but I'm sure that inevitably do (examples in the articles you referenced). I think the important thing is that if you're going to limit any freedoms it must be done openly and with the agreement and acknowledgement of society as a whole for the purpose of preventing harm to people. I add that final bit because things like compulsory religious dress code by law fit into the former, and they are quite clearly a limitation of freedom of expression.

[Keel]

Of course the fact that I am on this website and being able to initiate this discussion is a clear expression of my freedom of speech, but that's not the question I want to ask you. What I want to know is, when it really comes down to it - like in the cases of Satyendra Dubey, or possible victims of the new Tennessee law, or Andrew Serrano and the breached French museum - do we really have the complete freedom to express ourselves? We cannot be shielded from criticism and even hate, they are natural outcomes of having an opinion, but can the dissenting voice of a Catholic Church or indeed, a government, be so strong that it blots out an individual's freedom entirely?

I have to say, I didn't reply to this topic at first because it seems to me more a debate/discussion of knowledge as opposed to of principles.

I absolutely agree with this. I mean if you were to take the question of "Do we have the freedom to express ourselves?" to a broader context, it would be the same as having a discussion on free will versus determinism. On that note, given the conditions where mass oppression did exist and that the freedom of the individual was severely limited, history has shown that no authority can exist for very long without the support of what it intends to restrict. We can extend this to simple things such as manners (in stead of laws) which are imposed upon an individual by an authority (in this case society or parents). If one does not accept such 'manners' as habit and truly lives by them, it is inevitable that one day they will absent mindedly (or get fed up and willfully) do something 'rude'. Oppression, whether external or internal, cannot last forever. So I guess in the long-run freedom of expression is indestructible for one reason: we can only be selfless and comply with rules up to a certain extent, there will always be a time when we will want things our way even if it isn’t what others want.

[URA BOAT]

you are free to say anything you want...but you will have to carry the consequence. some time their are little to no consequence but some times it will cost you your life...

[Award Winning Boss]

Yes it does... everyone can say what they want but there are consequences to every action. So it does physically but politically no because words shouldn't really cost you your life but it can.

Satre ( i think ) said we have free will to say and do what we want but we can choose to go against it to deceive ourselves into think we have no other options.

Freedom of speech does exist but it needs to be controlled otherwise things like child pornography and other vile things come to the surface and nothing would happen.

Interesting topic, i would expand but i've got work to do

[Ezak]

Freedom of speech is the corner stone of the civilization we have today. It should not be compromized. I don't quite see what child porn has to do with this at all though.

[Award Winning Boss]

Freedom of speech is the corner stone of the civilization we have today. It should not be compromized. I don't quite see what child porn has to do with this at all though.

Freedom of speech is not only verbal but physical too. So if freedom of speech was left alone in its purest form (no consequences for what you say blah blah blah) then things such as child porn would crop up. Look at redditt, dig deep into it and you'll see what type of things are said.