Carla Bellomarino, Lowther Hall

Freedom of speech has gone too far

We have interpreted and assumed freedom in a more literal sense than ever before. Racism, terrorism, religion and politics- all popularly argued today in a post cold war society, due to our right of expression. But has this gone too far? How much expression is too much? Do we want to hear it all? Have we lost sight of the reason freedom of speech is important? For fairness, equality, healthy debate- not to encourage discrimination, lower social standards or encourage extreme and dangerous behaviour.

Perhaps, philosophically, freedom, as a concept, is unattainable. One can never be completely free, and in a democratically-run society, complete freedom is not really desirable for an efficient and effectively run government. Freedom of speech, then, may simply be an illusion. Have we, as a society, been under the illusion then, that freedom of speech is limitless?

The phrase has been interpreted too literally and so seems to be acted upon without thought to its constraints or restrictions. There are limits on what we do, how we do it, what we buy, how we live, who we are, everyday we acknowledge the limits placed upon us by society, which, are most of the time, necessary. However, due to the ever evolving ‘new media’ the boundaries and limitations of expression, the ‘freedom of speech’ are being tested, pushed and expanded. Not for the better. The new media has evolved in ways, in which we have, firstly, lost sight of the limitations of freedom of speech, secondly, then wrongly associated it with freedom of action, and finally, through this, encouraged  violence and de-unification within society.

It is clear that society, as a whole, has lost sight of the limitations of freedom of speech when using New Media. This term describes media that can only be created or used with the aid of computer processing power. The media usually involves some aspect of interactivity for its audience in digital form. It certainly creates various opportunities for Australians to express their views and exercise the ‘freedom of speech’. You can send information to hundreds of ‘friends’ instantly via networking program Myspace’s bulletins. Videos from camera phones can be uploaded onto YouTube, a free video broadcasting program accessed globally, instantaneously. Technology has evolved in a way that makes it not only easier for individuals to express themselves, but also, where there really are no limitations regarding what or how you express yourself.  In this respect, freedom of speech has gone too far in that it has allowed, through the media, the publication of offensive material effortless, and without censorship or punishment. This then becomes not an issue of freedom, but that of morals and judgment.

Recently, British man Kevin Whitrick committed suicide on webcam. The 42-year-old father hung himself while people in a chat room watched. Was this justified? Was he simply exercising his ‘freedom of speech’ by using technology to communicate something? Does the fact that this expression was to end his life make it wrong? Does anyone have the right to kill themselves? Freedom of speech regarding the new media, does, more than ever before, need restrictions, as its nature makes it easier, and possible, for us to enter into a different world, a world of ‘cyber-space’ in which normal moral principles are questioned.

Inevitably, our ‘freedom of speech’ has gone too far in that it has been wrongly associated with ‘freedom of action.’ The logic behind this is, that if we can say, or type, or send what we want, we can also do the things we are writing or talking about. For example, if racist comments are posted on websites, this can imply that their verbalisation in the ‘real world’ is also justified.

A group of teenagers in Werribee last year filmed their vicious attack on a mentally-disabled girl, which included setting her hair on fire and urinating on her, then uploading the video onto their ‘Myspace’. Even now, a concerning website relates what happened with pride and a vicious sarcasm. Why is such a website available for anyone to read when it contains material on an attack which is so disgraceful? Freedom of speech? Freedom of action is assumed with this freedom of speech- the scary thing is that it seems young people are, in this example, doing before expressing which makes it all that much harder for them to be stopped. This issue is not one of simplicity, it is a brutal circle which will only be controlled if regulations are made in the New Media in relation to what material is suitable for public access- not only can such material be damaging to web-surfers, but it also has the potential to encourage and ‘spur on’ like-minded unbalanced criminals .

Finally, freedom of speech, in the New Media, encourages violence and de-unification within society. When individuals reason that they are allowed their opinion, and are able to assert that opinion, they are less likely to be moved or swayed by that of another, and less willing to compromise if they think that their opinion is justified due to their ‘freedom of speech.’ We are already witnessing a society with strong, sometimes extreme, views, which are unwilling to compromise with those of another. This could be in relation to something as small as a rebellious teenager unwilling to compromise with their parents, to Australia being unwilling to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It must be acknowledged here, that there is a big difference between disagreeing and being unwilling to compromise.

Due to our increasingly ‘global world’ it is crucial to maintain skills of diplomacy. Freedom of speech in the New Media, at an unregulated level, the level we are experiencing, cannot accommodate to this, and so must be modified to conform to politeness, rational reasoning and acceptance of difference, still keeping healthy debate, discussion and questioning. This does not mean changing you views, or becoming submissive, it merely means acknowledging the view of others, and learning to work with differing views to come up with situations which benefit the whole, rather than morally-please the individual. Most of all, it means presenting these views in the New Media in a positive, intelligent and non-violent way. 

Freedom of speech has gone too far, in relation to the New Media. We have lost sight of the moral boundaries of our speech, and consequently, our actions. We have, through this, encouraged violence and de-unification in a society which should be celebrating its differing and multi-cultural people. The good intentions of technological progress have inadvertently created a cyber-world which is dangerous in its possibilities.

We cannot deny the fact that freedom of speech, has, in this respect, gone too far.

Also, the current generation cannot underestimate the power of words, especially in the instantly and globally accessed world of New Media- and likewise, cannot refute the importance of regulating such an influential and powerful tool.

Bibliography:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Teenage_Kings_of_Werribee

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1257252,00.html?f=rss

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/407012/