In the contemporary information age, the concept of Human Rights has evolved manifold. The notion that has its roots in Magna Cart (1215) which first documented the legal and civil rights of the people, started broadening its wings with the inception of new rights as the world moves towards the modern era.
The freedom of speech is among those civil liberties that came into being under the powerful mantra of valuing public opinion in all spheres of the society by democratic countries. In 1791, as a part of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech was granted to citizens of the US whereby they allowed to express their thoughts or speak up against any undesirable incidents at both public and official places. The amendment reads that:
“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.”
It is media that provides the masses with a plethora of platforms and venues where they can talk and share their thoughts and sentiments on any issue. The right which was given to amalgamate public thought into political decision-making, nevertheless, has become one of the major reasons for the dissemination of hate speech among the societies. Moreover, character assassination, violation of privacy rights, intolerance, etc. are those epidemics in society that also have their roots in lack of limitations on freedom of speech.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned argument, many experts and human rights activists reached a conclusion that unbridled power to speak and unrestricted freedom of speech would provide more harm than good to the country. This state of agony has now necessitated the states to adopt measures that would allow freedom of speech to the extent where the words would not work for defaming or maligning others and instigating intolerance in society.
Some people will question the magnitude and frequency of the events that have made excessive freedom of speech a bane rather than a boon to society. To all of them, the worldwide reports on character assassination which enunciate thousands of deaths every year substantiate the earlier said argument. There is the number of events that occurred globally was a mere word spoken under the guise of so-called freedom of speech to defame the innocent, resulted in the death (as a result of suicide) of the later.
Those who favor the limited liberty to speech do not deny its benefits of allowing people to express their thoughts but all they desire is to protect all those rights e.g. right to life, privacy and security of a person that has been largely violated due to excessive power of speech specifically the hate speech or statements made to avenge the others.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 noted that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
This clearly enunciates that freedom of speech does not support causing any harm to others or to instigate instability in society. Perhaps, the true spirit of this right encompasses opinion and communication that would bridge the gulf between the public and government and would bring greater stability all over society. In short, the public would be given the right to express their grievances while the government would be obliged to address those objections and allay the worries of its masses.
The writer is a faculty member at NOA, Islamabad.