0
0
Freedom of expression is seen as a fundamental human right. It is an important aspect to living in a free country, which is different to countries where people live in fear of persecution if they say something that isn’t in-line with the Government direction.
That said, different countries have different interpretations of freedom of expression. In Australia, for example, freedom of expression does not include spreading hate or discrimination. In the US, however, freedom of expression has no limitations under the constitution.
In today’s world where social media allows for fast propagation of expression, it is possible for the voice of an individual to reach millions of people in a very short period of time. This is especially powerful to bring important information to the lime light where it might have been missed. Recently my wife told me about a podcast that led to an unsolved murder getting re-opened and subsequently a suspect being arrested. The ability to reach an audience and express your thoughts is extremely powerful and can have a lasting impact.
This brings us to the important issue of censorship and the impact this can have on freedom and society. In general, censorship is seeing as having negative consequences that could impact freedom and even democracy itself as “freedom of the press” is critical to keeping a check on the powers at be.
The question we need to ask is: “Should we allow for complete freedom of expression or should we have limits on our expression?”
Maybe a better question to ask is: “Who can create and enforce limits on expression?” Even if we could agree, for example, that some types of expression are not in the best interest of society, who could create and enforce these limits in an unbiased and fair way?
If the Government was responsible for setting limits on expression and enforcing them, then we run the risk of Government using this to their best interest. As we see in some countries, the Government uses their power to limit expression to maintain control. Further, a Government may make decisions that benefit their chances of re-election, which throws into question their ability to be an unbiased enforcer of limits on freedom of expression.
If not the Government, then does the setting of limits become the terms and conditions of social media giants? In the last US election both Twitter and Facebook suspended Donald Trump’s accounts for breaches of their terms and conditions, which questionably had an impact on the outcome of the election by taking away Trump’s access to his followers. Does this give too much power to the social media platforms to impact their member’s freedom of expression?
If not the social media giants, then can we as the public place limits on people’s freedom of expression by how we respond to expression that is not beneficial to society? For example, the public’s response to J. K. Rowling’s opinions on gender were in general to condemn her for expressing her beliefs. However, if we are afraid to share our expression because of fear of being retribution by the public, is this also a form of censorship and potentially one that has no rules because it is completely based on the opinion of the majority?
I wish there was a good answer to these questions but, whilst I do believe that there should be limits to expression that hurt others, I do not believe there is a way to implement limitations in an unbiased or fair way. Whilst we should be able to express ourselves, it seems like we are not able to limit ourselves!
