Freedom of speech (FOS) is as important as the air we breathe. The FOS is not a “free for all” concept as many perceive it to be. In the country that I call my 2nd home (USA), it is the same law that protects the rights for an Azan (Muslim prayer call) to be called on a loud speaker or a religious figure depicted having engaged in a homosexual act in a theatrical play. I am sorry to have used the above examples, I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I think for the purpose of this debate it is helpful to present two opposing extremes that the FOS covers. In other words, if you don’t like pornography, you may kiss your freedom to pray good bye as well!
.” - First Amendment to the United States Constitution, goes like this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
The First Amendment (I will refer it as FOS for the purpose of this discussion) provides legal protection to its citizens from prosecution for using their right to protest or use voice against any deed or act that they might find objectionable. The framers of the constitution realized that the freedom of speech was critical to the well being of the society at large. Every now and then there are amendments to the constitution to reflect the current mood of the public. The FOS law has worked well for over 200 years.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. The debate is where does one draw the line. One of the biggest issues concerning the argument of the First Amendment is pornography. Should it be Legal? What exactly do the courts have to say about pornography? There are the different reactions toward pornography. There are two types of pornography: soft core or erotica, and hard core. Erotica really is defined as literature used to provoke sexual arousal. Should it be Legal? This debate of obscenity dates back to a case in which the first judgement was ruled by the definition of the court. This was the obscenity case of Regina v. Hicklaa in 1868. The best line in the ruling was "when it is necessary to distinguish the type of pornography to which we are referring we will be specific". Then there are other trials with the one of the most famous government squabbles of porn. The case of Miller v. California ruled that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment.
I sited the above two examples to demonstrate that there are technical aspects of this law that can only be very confusing to apprehend (to put it mildly). Lower Courts are given fair amount of latitude in making judgements what is and what is not covered under this or any other law. Plaintiffs and Defendants are also given lots of choices to appeal the decisions, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The Supreme Court has the “final” word.
Lets first talk about some undesirable possible outcomes of this law.
- It gives pretty much a free ride to everyone to express him or herself whatever comes to their mind. Please note that physically harming people is not protected under the FOS.
- The media that disseminates information is owned by only a handful of big business. (News Corp of Murdoch –Fox Networks; GE owning NBC, MSNBC, etc.; Disney owning ABC, etc.; CBS Corp; and Turner Networks). Together these businesses own over 90 % of the media (print and electronic). The information coming out can easily be tainted (and often it is!) and biased. These companies contribute large amounts of money to political parties to gain favors. Their reporting can be biased. For example, an NBC correspondent will think twice before doing an investigative report on GE selling engines for Jet Planes in a contract administered by the Defense Department.
- The FOS law makes closet racists come out to express their biased views (e.g., The Bell Curve).
- There are lots of other dangers.
Now some benefits:
- Everyone is allowed equal rights to express their views/beliefs (or lack of them). If I don’t like something I am free to express my dislike in writing, or by protest without any fear of being prosecuted under the law.
- It allows media outlets to do investigative work to expose misdeeds of the society. FOS in addition with Freedom of Information Act (to access Public sector data, with only exception being information concerning the national security) provides an excellent framework for free and un-biased journalism.
Despite all the dangers it may pose, the FOS is very dear to me. I would not like to live in a place where I am not offered a protection from prosecution to express my views (religious, artistic, personal, political and other).
Some people confuse this law as an issue dealing with moralities. Morality is something that comes from within (an internal fight with one’s conscious) and therefore should not be legislated. Laws should not apply towards morals. No one has a right to decide what morals are good and what are not good. Some morals may appear good at one setting and not at another. Morality is also not the same as communal values of the society. Those are different.
Finally, what makes USA a superpower is not its military might, but the freedom of speech for its citizens. Even though USA was 4th on the list compiled by Late Dr. Mahboob ul Huq, an outstanding and globally respected Pakistani economist. He devised a method to rate how developed a country is using socio-economic indicators. He argued that USA was not all that free as it claims to be. His results indicated that Sweden was the most developed country, and the least developed countries were the ones of the Indian Sub Continent. I have great respect for Dr Mahboob Ul Haq, but USA in my opinion is numero uno!
.” - First Amendment to the United States Constitution, goes like this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
The First Amendment (I will refer it as FOS for the purpose of this discussion) provides legal protection to its citizens from prosecution for using their right to protest or use voice against any deed or act that they might find objectionable. The framers of the constitution realized that the freedom of speech was critical to the well being of the society at large. Every now and then there are amendments to the constitution to reflect the current mood of the public. The FOS law has worked well for over 200 years.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. The debate is where does one draw the line. One of the biggest issues concerning the argument of the First Amendment is pornography. Should it be Legal? What exactly do the courts have to say about pornography? There are the different reactions toward pornography. There are two types of pornography: soft core or erotica, and hard core. Erotica really is defined as literature used to provoke sexual arousal. Should it be Legal? This debate of obscenity dates back to a case in which the first judgement was ruled by the definition of the court. This was the obscenity case of Regina v. Hicklaa in 1868. The best line in the ruling was "when it is necessary to distinguish the type of pornography to which we are referring we will be specific". Then there are other trials with the one of the most famous government squabbles of porn. The case of Miller v. California ruled that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment.
I sited the above two examples to demonstrate that there are technical aspects of this law that can only be very confusing to apprehend (to put it mildly). Lower Courts are given fair amount of latitude in making judgements what is and what is not covered under this or any other law. Plaintiffs and Defendants are also given lots of choices to appeal the decisions, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The Supreme Court has the “final” word.
Lets first talk about some undesirable possible outcomes of this law.
- It gives pretty much a free ride to everyone to express him or herself whatever comes to their mind. Please note that physically harming people is not protected under the FOS.
- The media that disseminates information is owned by only a handful of big business. (News Corp of Murdoch –Fox Networks; GE owning NBC, MSNBC, etc.; Disney owning ABC, etc.; CBS Corp; and Turner Networks). Together these businesses own over 90 % of the media (print and electronic). The information coming out can easily be tainted (and often it is!) and biased. These companies contribute large amounts of money to political parties to gain favors. Their reporting can be biased. For example, an NBC correspondent will think twice before doing an investigative report on GE selling engines for Jet Planes in a contract administered by the Defense Department.
- The FOS law makes closet racists come out to express their biased views (e.g., The Bell Curve).
- There are lots of other dangers.
Now some benefits:
- Everyone is allowed equal rights to express their views/beliefs (or lack of them). If I don’t like something I am free to express my dislike in writing, or by protest without any fear of being prosecuted under the law.
- It allows media outlets to do investigative work to expose misdeeds of the society. FOS in addition with Freedom of Information Act (to access Public sector data, with only exception being information concerning the national security) provides an excellent framework for free and un-biased journalism.
Despite all the dangers it may pose, the FOS is very dear to me. I would not like to live in a place where I am not offered a protection from prosecution to express my views (religious, artistic, personal, political and other).
Some people confuse this law as an issue dealing with moralities. Morality is something that comes from within (an internal fight with one’s conscious) and therefore should not be legislated. Laws should not apply towards morals. No one has a right to decide what morals are good and what are not good. Some morals may appear good at one setting and not at another. Morality is also not the same as communal values of the society. Those are different.
Finally, what makes USA a superpower is not its military might, but the freedom of speech for its citizens. Even though USA was 4th on the list compiled by Late Dr. Mahboob ul Huq, an outstanding and globally respected Pakistani economist. He devised a method to rate how developed a country is using socio-economic indicators. He argued that USA was not all that free as it claims to be. His results indicated that Sweden was the most developed country, and the least developed countries were the ones of the Indian Sub Continent. I have great respect for Dr Mahboob Ul Haq, but USA in my opinion is numero uno!
Comment