| Monash home | Staff Intranet | Community Legal Services | Law Library | Contact us |
| Staff directory | A-Z index |
| Monash home | Staff Intranet | Community Legal Services | Law Library | Contact us |
| Staff directory | A-Z index |
|
|
Michael Dorman, Narre Warren South CollegeFreedom of speech has gone too far
The importance of freedom of speech as a fundamental human right is established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where it is stated that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference…” (1) An extremely contentious question arises from this freedom. What forms of speech should be protected? And under what circumstances should freedom of speech be sanctioned? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can again be referred to; where it declares that everyone has the right to protection against attacks upon their “honour and reputation”(2), and also the right to “life, liberty and security of person”(3). In essence, this makes laws that limit freedom of speech in circumstances of defamation (attacks against reputation) and threats to harm/death threats (life and security of person) virtuous due to their protection of the civil liberties of others and the fact that they, for the most part, are not suppressing of ideologies, but rather preserve a state of fairness. Restrictions other than these are arbitrary in nature. They only serve the purpose of preventing views that aren’t complimentary to the ideals of those in power from being propagated. Using suppression of freedom of speech as a matter of political convenience is best illustrated with the period of McCarthyism in the United States during the 1940s-1950s. During this time, the US government tyrannised those sympathising with communism and conducted a scare campaign that made these communist sympathisers out to be “the enemy”. Despite the fact that these communist supporters were not infringing upon the civil liberties of others, they were scrutinised and silenced because their beliefs were incompatible with those of the people in power. Moreover, it was the fear that the communist movement may rise to become more popular than the government at the time, and their fear of the status quo changing that they felt compelled to contain the movement. Such oppression effectively stifled the development of further social policies such as social security and public health that are now considered essential human rights in some countries, purely because they promote equality, a characteristic commonly linked to communism. Interestingly, the US has a welfare system that is far less endowed than the systems of other western nations, a policy which is perhaps a relict of McCarthyism that ensured an enduring hostility towards communism, and possibly, radical political ideals in general. The McCarthyism era shows how imperative it is that the holders of perceived radical beliefs are not persecuted for expressing these ideas. While they may not be popular views, the radicalism of these individuals often provides many innovative ideas which deserve to be heard. By persecuting people for these opinions, society misses out on some potentially useful ideas. Sadly, the phenomenon of McCarthyism is currently repeating itself, this time in the form of Islamophobia. Since the events of September 11, Islamophobia, the fear of Islam, has risen dramatically to the extent where the ability of Muslims to exercise freedom of speech has been subdued. Partially, this oppression has been a result of the media, although political leaders such as George W. Bush who have also created a powerful juxtaposition by using words such as “fascism”, “murderous” and “radicalism” when talking about Islamists(4). Associating Islam with such negative words has created an atmosphere in many western nations where there is a great deal of animosity, suspicion and fear towards Muslims. This has resulted in an environment where Muslims are fearful of expressing their opinion, or when they do convey those opinions are ridiculed, harassed or otherwise scorned upon for expressing their opinions. Such oppression as a result of Islamophobia is evident with the comments of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, a senior Muslim cleric who compared immodestly dressed women with uncovered meat left in the streets for cats to eat(5). While these comments may be extremely contentious, the response triggered by the Sheik’s comments including calls for him to be deported is particularly unfortunate, as it demonstrates the censorship being placed upon Muslims. Indeed, although the comments themselves may be complete hyperbole, they do spark important discussion on whether excessive sexualisation and dress immodesty is good for society. In a world of increasingly liberal values, the generally conservative opinions of Muslims should be valued as they serve as an important check and balance in ensuring society progresses in the right way. Suppressing Muslims because they present a largely different way of life is very similar to the marginalisation of Communists. The limitation of freedom of speech for each of these groups is an example of how worthwhile ideals can be lost due to a fear of new philosophies. Without embracing, or at least not persecuting the individuals who hold these beliefs society stands to lose a lot of knowledge and wisdom. Everything from the realisation of earth as being round, to democracy and equal opportunity has depended on these outspoken, radical individuals being able to articulate their ideas and as such, if humanity wishes for future progression it must allow people to exercise freedom of speech without interference. Furthermore, the entire concept of democracy is reliant upon the recognition of radical opinions. Permitting these extreme views from both sides of the political spectrum helps create a centrist platform as it allows for the good ideas from both sides of politics to be taken and for concessions to be made to create a progressive, yet stable society. Without having such radical thinkers, the centre would have no basis from which to create policies. Freedom of speech is an all-encompassing liberty, not one where the State can make selections about what is appropriate in order to create an environment that is suitable for them. Perhaps the truest meaning of freedom of speech is best expressed by George Orwell “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”(6) Footnotes: |
