Freedom Of Speech: Analysing The Conditions And Limitations Of The Right To Free Speech

The right to freedom of speech is an important value in western society.1 Without free speech there could be no true democracy; this is a right which protects the integrity of society, by allowing citizen’s to voice their opinions. It is a right which is protected under the Constitution,2 and is one of the most fundamental freedoms ever to exist. The lack of free speech would render elections and political debate meaningless,3 as no politician would be able to speak their mind or stand up for their values and beliefs. The importance of free speech cannot be refuted, but the amount of freedom that it gives certainly can. No right should be deemed as ‘free’ when there are restrictions imposed upon that right, and in turn speaking the truth becomes punishable.

The right to freedom of speech, as stated under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, stipulates that every citizen of a Member State of the European Union has the right to ‘the freedom of expression’,4 and that this freedom also extends to ‘the right to hold opinions’.5 Article 10 then describes the conditions and restrictions which can be placed on the right to freedom of speech, such as if a restriction is prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society, or in the interests of health and morals.6 If one was to read only the first paragraph of Article 10, they would be given a sense a sincere freedom, however, upon reading paragraph two of the same article, the thought and idea of freedom dwindles and slips away as one learns that the supposed right to free speech is not entirely free at all; instead it is subject to conditions and limitations

It is also important to consider the role that speaking the truth plays in the right to free speech. On first appearance one may think that there would be no law against speaking the truth, as that is the whole foundation of legal disputes. Every case tried in a courtroom is heard with the intention of discovering the facts and the truth, and as such the parties involved are required to take an oath, in which they pledge their honesty. However, in the case of free speech, it does not matter which party is speaking the truth, it only matters that what they say is considered offensive to someone somewhere in the world.

The famous saying, ‘nothing in life comes for free’, is becoming increasingly evident in the twenty-first century. The discrepancy between the grammatical meaning of the word ‘free’ and the usage of the word in modern societies shows how the meaning has changed over time. In previous years, the word ‘free’ would have implied that someone was given something, with no expectation or restrictions placed upon them; unfortunately this is no longer the case. The right to free speech cannot be described as free, because there are firm conditions and limitations in place, restricting the amount of freedom that one has. In certain cases the right to free speech even prevents one from speaking the truth, which is in theory an absurd concept; if something is known to be true, and has been proven, it is therefore impossible to argue against it in a logical manner.


Sources:
1 Doctor Mark Cooray, Freedom Of Speech And Expression, 1997,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap6.htm#6.1

2 Zack Whittaker, Twitter's 'landmark' court ruling: Why British free speech is over, 29 May 2011,
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/twitters-landmark-court-ruling-why-british-free-speech-
is-over/10338

3 This Nation, American Government and Politics Online, http://thisnation.com/textbook/billofrights-
speech.html, (Visited on 27 November 2011)

4 Council of Europe, A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, Human Rights Handbook No. 2, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/C3804E16-
817B-46D5-A51F-0AC1A8E0FB8D/0/DG2ENHRHAND022004.pdf, pp. 8
5 ibid
6 ibid, pp. 20-29

Posted in: Debates