Forum: The General Assembly
Issue: The Question on the Freedom of Speech
Student Officer: Maaike Spiekerman
Position: President of the General Assembly
Introduction:
Freedom of expression is seen as the cornerstone to modern democracy. Without the ability to express beliefs, opinions, or the access to information, citizens cannot make informed decisions about who to vote for, and leaders might not know what their citizens want for the country. An extreme example of this is the DPR Korea. When BBC reporters interviewed students there, none had heard of Nelson Mandela or other prominent figures who had fought for things like equality.
However, freedom of speech is something that is often repressed. Bloggers, journalists, activists and novelists are often jailed or worse for the things they write and say, often under false accusations of other crimes. Newspapers are censored, websites blocked, and books and other publications carefully monitored. This is especially seen in times of conflict: during the Arab Spring uprisings, Facebook, Twitter and the like were the first websites to be carefully monitored and potentially blocked. China has jailed, exiled and placed under house arrest scores of writers and political or human rights activists who speak out against the regime. In Syria, people have been jailed because of blogs or Facebook comments. Even in the United States, freedom of speech is not always guaranteed. Some governments call it protection; others say it infringes on human rights.
On the other side, there remains the fundamental question: at what point is freedom of expression taken too far? When should a government ban a work of art, movie, book, or take someone to court over a speech? Should a movie which portrays a certain minority as backwards and discriminatory be allowed, or should it be banned on grounds of inciting hatred? At what point is freedom of expression truly detrimental to a country's security?
Definition of Key Terms:
Freedom of expression/speech: the right to express opinions, even if they are critical. It is often disputed what exactly this encompasses. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that one may use offensive language when conveying a political message, but one may not use offensive language when giving a speech at a school event. According to the European Court for Human Rights, freedom of speech “.. is applicable not only to ‘information and ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”
Defamation: to damage the reputation of someone or something. In some countries, defamation of the state or head of state is against the law.
Libel: the damaging of someone's reputation through a published false statement.
Obscenity: something that is offensive or disgusting by moral principles.
Prior/previous restraint: the prohibiting of publishing something. This is banned in countries like the US, which instead make the publisher answerable to the content and impose sanctions after the material has been published.
Censorship: the practice of officially examining books, papers, news, websites etc. and prohibiting or suppressing any 'unacceptable' material.
Vigilantism: when citizens take the law into their own hands, often illegally.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Why is freedom of speech important?
The English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that freedom of speech was important for four reasons. The first reason is that if you silence an opinion you will never know whether it was correct or incorrect, and are therefore assuming you can never be wrong. Secondly, he argued that an opinion is never entirely wrong. Every opinion has a little bit of truth in it: if you silence it, you'll never know what that truth is. Thirdly, he stated that you can't assume an idea is correct nor convince other people it is correct unless you test it against an opposing view. Finally, he said that people forget why something is correct unless the idea is challenged every once in a while and its strengths so exposed.
For example, say someone has an opinion that taking the bus to school is the best method of transport. If he refuses to listen to everyone who has a different opinion, he'll never know if their opinion has some truth in it. He'll never know if, sometimes, there are better options than taking the bus. He can't convince people taking the bus is the best method unless he races his friend, who rides his bike to school every morning, and gets to school first. Finally, if he decides to take the car one day and gets stuck in a traffic jam or has a car crash, and then sees his friend from the bus at school, he remembers why taking the bus was a better idea.
Most countries protect freedom of speech in their constitutions; however, not all countries enforce it as well as they should.
Why does censorship exist?
Censorship has been around for as long as people have communicated. We censor ourselves when we talk: should I say this or is it better to rephrase it? Is it appropriate to say this about this topic, or will it make me or someone else look bad? Countries do much the same thing, but on a larger scale. They censor people, but they also censor books, websites, works of art etc. They might cite several reasons for doing this.
The most common reason for censoring is suppressing dissent. Especially with the rise of social media, the power of words to bring about rebellions has risen greatly. During the uprisings in Egypt, many of the protests and rallies were organised via sites like Facebook, leading the Mubarak government to block Facebook. China blocks Facebook and other websites for similar reasons. A good example of a country which uses censorship to suppress dissent is the DPR Korea. North Korea heavily censors its media, instead painting a rosy picture of being a country where everything is perfect. Without this censorship, this image would fall apart. People would be exposed to what others think of their country and how their standard of living compares to that of others. Dissent would arise on a mass scale, something the rulers want to avoid. For this same reason, dissenting artists and writers are sent to prison camps, along with their families.
Censorship can also be used for propaganda. During World War II, newspapers in German-occupied Europe were told to only print news favourable to the Germans. This led to a distorted picture of how the war was going, with newspapers proclaiming people who had been defeated welcomed the soldiers enthusiastically and proclaiming the Allies were not doing as well as they were. The southern states of the US banned Uncle Tom's Cabin during the Civil War because it empathised with slaves. Nowadays, countries like the DPR Korea uses censorship in this same way, censoring out what is not favourable to the state and embellishing what is, thus influencing perceptions within a country.
Countries also censor things perceived as not politically correct or culturally acceptable. For example, when a Miami baseball coach praised Fidel Castro, the man in charge of Cuba, this led to an outcry in the US. Having a large population of Cuban immigrants, many of which fled Cuba because of repression, a comment praising the Cuban leader was not appreciated. The coach was subsequently fined and given a five game suspension. In Thailand, it is forbidden to say anything defamatory against the royal family, on pain of a prison sentence. There has been much controversy surrounding this law, with people arguing is infringes upon freedom of speech and that in a modern democracy there is no place for this law.
Many countries also have laws banning works deemed blasphemy, including Pakistan and Sudan. These laws are very debatable, and are sometimes used by the majority to punish minorities. For example, in Egypt, a Koranist, a group of people who only accept the Koran as the true source of authority, was jailed after calling for political reforms. The official charge read 'insulting Islam.' In some countries, vigilantism rather than official legal routes deals with blasphemy.
Countries may also censor things for the same reason people censor themselves: they don't want to incite hatred. South Africa, in light of its history of Apartheid, is extremely cautious to prohibit anything that might incite hatred, which includes the incitement of violence, the propaganda of war and the incitement of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion. Far right politician Geert Wilders of the Netherlands produced the movie Fitna, which is extremely critical of Muslim traditions. The Muslim community in the Netherlands demanded a court ban him from releasing the movie, saying it incited hatred. Wilders insisted the state had to protect his freedom of speech, and that banning the movie would infringe on this right. This also illustrates one of the problems surrounding freedom of speech: where is the line of what is acceptable and when is censorship in order?
The Legality of Censorship
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, censorship may only be employed in questions of the respect and reputation of others and in cases of national security or public order, health and morals. It must pass three tests to be considered legal. The censorship must be legal under law, it has to serve a purpose deemed legitimate under international law, and the restriction imposed must be legal under international law. As one can imagine, these guidelines are broad, and allow for interpretation, blasphemy, defamation and anti-terrorism laws being the most frequently brought up cases. What is a case of national security for one is not so for another country.
Current Restriction of Freedom of Speech
According to Reporters without Borders, Finland, Norway, Estonia, The Netherlands and Austria currently rank highest for press freedom. Iran, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria rank worst. China, among other countries, has several activists and writers under house arrest for things they have published, thus infringing on their freedom of speech. Bloggers and activists critical of the regime in Syria have been arbitrarily detained, and many international journalists have been pulled out of the country altogether, finding their work near impossible.
The Internet, too, is more and more heavily surveyed. Reporters Without Borders has currently marked twelve countries as enemies of the internet, with a further fourteen under surveillance, under which Australia and France, two countries one wouldn't associate with censorship. Furthermore, currently 121 netizens are in jail regarding comments made on the internet. This number might be an underestimate due to unreported cases.
Important Organisations and Countries:
Reporters Without Borders (RSF, RWB): an organisation which works for the rights of journalists. This includes the freedom of the press, as it publishes a Press Freedom Index every year, and the freedom of the internet.
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX): founded in 1992, this group is a branch organisation of groups which strive to expose infringement on the freedom of expression. It brings awareness by spreading information, provides advice, financial and technical support to promote freedom of speech, facilitates campaigns, and organises forums to discuss freedom of expression and issues regarding it.
Article 19: this organisation is based on Article 19 from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It holds campaigns to promote freedom of expression and expose infringement of this.
European Court of Human Rights: any issues regarding the infringement on freedom of expression in which people have found a local European judge has not ruled fairly are taken up with this court. It has previously issued a statement as to what it holds as freedom of speech, stating freedom of speech “... is applicable not only to ‘information and ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.” The court further stated that it doesn't matter whether an opinion is correct, saying, “It matters little that [an] opinion is a minority one and may appear to be devoid of merit since ... it would be particularly unreasonable to restrict freedom of expression only to generally accepted ideas.”
United States of America: the United States of America has enshrined freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, its Supreme Courts often struggle with what constitutes a violation of freedom of speech. For example, it has ruled it is appropriate to use offensive language to make a political statement, but not if this political statement is made at a school event. Furthermore, it has tried to ban books from schools such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird for reasons ranging from it giving a skewed view of an issue to language.
Russia: Russia is a heavy practitioner of censorship. Many media outlets are either state-owned or owned by companies supportive of the Kremlin. Measures to control the news have included passing rules such as fifty percent of the news having to be positive and the banning of mentioning opposition leaders. Many of the protests surrounding the elections were organised via social media, and bloggers and other online activists have subsequently been thrown in jail for claims of extremism. It furthermore heavily censors what can be said surrounding the conflict in Chechnya. However, compared to surrounding ex-Soviet countries, its censorship is not quite as bad as that of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.