The issue of freedom of speech has been around for a number of years. The establishment of democracy in recent times led to the way people looked at the events in the country and share these events with the world. In the world, there is always the freedom of speech, and the yet there is the need to express information that could be kept from the world at large. Through democracy, freedom of the press and freedom of speech have become an integral part of the society and the way of life of these citizens. In fact, many citizens, and in particular reporters believe the world needs to know the facts about the events in the countries, although this may have a negative impact on the development of the country. With the inception of democracy, many countries need to provide for the rights and the safety of individuals. The freedom to speak comes with responsibilities so that the constitutional rights of the individual are not violated. In fact, free speech constitutes the right of respect for everyone. Nonetheless, journalists should adhere to boundaries that entitles one to express opinions through the printed media and to the televised audiences.
Conversely, different countries have their standards that dictate the level of tolerance in executing the freedom of speech. Arguably, free speech often cause more harm than good. This freedom of the press allows individuals the opportunity to learn about the events that occur in daily lives. The media has the right to free speech that is well founded and grounded in the truth. A lack of objectivity in freedom of speech violates human rights as journalists often cross the boundaries of respect when they share information. Individuals who show concern for the abuse of freedom of speech wonder about the boundaries of free speech. The harsh reality is that when the one crosses the boundaries of free speech and share damaging; this abuse incites violence. Advocates against free speech argue that the freedom of speech acts as a two-sided sword that changes the lives, history, and civilization of the nation. For many individuals, the freedom to express their beliefs and feelings is beneficial to many individuals.
Nevertheless, the freedom of speech is counterproductive for some people. The fact is that there is a major difference in the right of intimacy and the right to free speech. One may be disturbed by the actions of another, but that does not mean that the moment of free speech solves the situation. The fact is that in moments of anger, one should not express one’s true feelings of thoughts as this can only incite controversy. Imagine that the Manager of the company decides to change the labels on the expired product. Individuals use these products and become ill. Does the right to free speech allow the employees to share this knowledge to the public?
The moral obligations of the employee dictate that this knowledge should become public knowledge. But, at what physical cost should the information become public knowledge? The result of this shared knowledge incites a lawsuit and the company becomes bankrupt. Of course many individuals will lose their jobs as a result of the liberty to speak on the matter to the public. But, many workers become unemployed and cannot take care of their families. As a result, the anger becomes real as no one wants to lose one’s job in such a trying economic moment.
Throughout history, mankind believes that freedom of speech has a powerful influence on the events in history. Robert Kaplan is one of the four most prominent writers on defining the post-Cold War, (Kaplan, n.d., par 1). Kaplan’s article in the February 1994 Atlantic Monthly, "The Coming Anarchy," showed the rise in population, urbanization and resource depletion that undermine governments (Kaplan, n.d., par 1). Many individuals benefitted from the knowledge, but there were those who questioned the validity and timing of the article. Kaplan’s right to free speech on the Cold War became the center of many debates in foreign countries.
Nonetheless, Kaplan continued to write on hotly debated topics and the impact on the global market. In his December 1997 Atlantic Monthly cover story, "Was Democracy Just A Moment?" Kaplan faced another round of controversy as the piece challenged the role of democracy in the world and its ability to lead to more stability, (Kaplan, n.d., par 1). Reports from the United States News and World Report suggests that Kaplan’s article drew the attention of the former President Bill Clinton and encourage a further analysis of the study of these issues, (Kaplan, n.d., par 1) Clearly the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech have positive impacts on the society, but also it has negative repercussions for many groups.
The reality is that free speech tends to change the events in history in many ways. Individuals believe that they have a right to speak out against the issues in the society that may have a negative impact on the society. Humans continue to show that there is a need to express free speech, but should one “Kiss and Tell?” Free speech leads to a transformation in the society and the laws of the country. Through credible journalism, the world has changed into a society that is tolerant towards the diversity of religions, cultures, and traditions. Nonetheless, these changes do not occur easily and history shows that the numerous revolutions and bloodshed, led to the freedom of speech.
While one appreciates being able to speak freely, one cannot expect to speak about everything in the public sphere. Therefore one cannot hope to “Kiss and Tell” as there are a number of intimate details that the public should never know. During the civil war in the United States, individuals fought for what they believed to be their rights. With the North and South at odds about the continuance of slavery, the world listened with abated breathes as the news traveled far and wide. There was nothing wrong with sharing the information, but the problems rested in the fact that the news travelled to human rights advocates at the time; hence, the occurrence of the Civil War. The War brought along changes in free speech for blacks and many individuals will agree that freedom of speech changed the course of history as it allows minority groups in today’s society, the opportunity to express their thoughts freely.
Undoubtedly, free speech had a tremendous impact on the way the world now operates. Yet, countries in the Middle East continue to face the struggles of too much free speech. The Arab Uprising stemmed from the interference of the social media in the operations of the country and created a negative view of the country. The country’s political and social image faced negative attacks from the press and led to the government curtailing the reports in the media. Arguably, mankind’s need to express self in the media destroys the foundations of tolerance and removes one’s democratic right to prevent negative messages to spread across the media. At present, people tend to twist what freedom of press means and use the medium to slander others. The most disappointing consequences of the revolutions in Arab Spring in 2011 are the little changes in the local media in the Middle East. The local presses in these Middle Eastern countries grab simple stories sensationalize the concepts of the freedom of press. There is much bias in these stories and people who have never travelled to these countries form negative opinions of the Middle East.
The Internet, press, and television harass and often torment others as they stretch the truth to fit the moment. As such this act destroys the lives of individuals as is an invasion of one’s privacy. It is uncommon for the free speech to offer positive actions and not negative actions. Arguably, the freedom of the press is no exemption from this common standard. The freedom of press causes damage to many nations. The stereotypical views of Arabs as the media portray these individuals are terrorists. Many critics lash out against Middle Easterners even though their views bear no substance. The fact is that in an effort to educate the world, the press removes one’s democratic right to withhold information. The controversy heightens when decisive data or confidential information becomes public knowledge across the world and destroys the control of a country.
Pramod Nayar writes “Wiki Leaks has redefined not only media ethics it has redefined what we understand as information cultures itself, (Pramod, 2013, p.27). Wiki leaks create much controversy across the world as top-secret governmental information becomes available to every sector of the world. As a non-profit organization, Wiki leaks expose the military and political secrets of other countries across the world. One could argue that while countries need to know the detrimental secrets that may impact their country. Still, the freedom of speech is a right that comes with a high price. Wiki leaks justify its action with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), quoting Article 19 where “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,” (Pramod, 2013, p.27). Critics argue that Wiki leaks characterize “a new culture of information that dovetails into two other cultural practices: whistleblowing and parrhesia (truth-telling),” (Pramod, 2013, p.27).
Although the organization seeks to share information with their good intentions, these whistle – blowers place their lives on the line as they seek to effect political changes around the world. One could say that the organization sends the “leaks” of information that can cause major disasters in countries in the Middle East and the United States. The consequences of filtering top-secret documents can result in serious wars among countries. One questions the intentions of this organization and wonders if the reason for sharing such malicious information has any merit. The harsh truth is that Wiki leaks share information that shows the weaknesses in the power ridden countries such as the United States and leaves these countries vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The consequences are grave as a terrorist attack on nations lead to the endangering of millions of innocent victims. Of course, believers in the freedom of speech will argue that the world has the right to know the weaknesses and strengths of their counterparts. The problems lie with how these countries deal with the knowledge. The fact is that Wiki leaks’ "publish it all" guiding principle leads to negative repercussions for countries as they move into the future.
Mark Warren in his 2010 article opines “the free flow of information is to be revered, and the only healthy position for a free press to assume vis-à-vis a government and government's penchant for too much secrecy is skepticism, if not scorn,”(Warren, 2010 par. 2). Arguably, writes that critics like Assange wants the world to know the entire truth about the society, but individuals need “understand that the public doesn't have a right to know everything.” (Warren, 2010, par. 2). In addition, Warren’s arguments are valid as he makes it clear “the public most certainly isn't entitled to unfettered access to raw intelligence data, especially when the party dumping the data has brought virtually no critical thinking to the data in his possession, and consequently has no appreciation for the consequences of his actions, including the very real possibility that he will get innocent people killed,” (Warren, 2010 par. 2).
With the release of over seventy thousand documents, Assange attempted to start a World War. The documents dominated the media for months on end. One cannot help but question the merit of making the public “knowledgeable” with the delicate situation in the Middle East. In addition, the documents could create chaos as Assange sought to liken the American government to the East German secret police. Clearly, the release of the documents is malicious and not well thought out. The fact is “there are very real and good reasons that we have laws that govern access to such information,” (Warren, 2010 par. 2). These laws form the foundations for rational thinking, but if one cannot understand the logical arguments for these laws, and then the world faces disaster.
Peter Ludlow writes that the release of these sensitive documents by Wiki leaks founder, Julian Assange, is controversial and endangers the life of Assange. Conversely, Wiki Leaks has some amount of merit as it “is not the one-off creation of a solitary genius; [but,] it is the product of decades of collaborative work by people engaged in applying computer hacking to political causes,” (Ludlow, 2010, par. 2). The fact is that people crave information. If Assange did not create Wiki leaks then someone else would a news site to relay information.
Conversely, “democracy is much broader than a special political form, a method of conducting government, of making laws and carrying on governmental administration by means of popular suffrage and elected officers,” (Dewey, n.d, par.1). It includes the broad spectrum of the development of the human relationships and personalities. One could argue that democracy is a way of perceiving and expressing the events in life. Everyone has the right to equality, liberty and freedom, but others choose to take these away in a single speech. Wiki leaks and other thought-sharing sites offer the freedom to express oneself; however, the right to privacy in one’s social life should take precedence when one shares information. In recent times, celebrities are unable to keep their lives out of the public sphere as media hounds splash their personal lives across the media. What about the “kiss” of rights of these celebrities? Should everyone and anyone be allowed to “tell” personal stories in the name of democracy? Freedom of speech and freedom of press should not dominate the lives of anyone as one should be able to retain their democracy if they choose to keep their private lives private.
One may argue that politics, celebrities and all public figures can have no privacy, and therefore, they should accept that their public life is instigates freedom of speech. The fact is that “ideology has disintegrated irrevocably,” (Kolakowski, 1990, p.1). In addition, Dewey writes that the fact that people retreat to moral arguments to justify the arguments of democracy suggests that democracy most countries lack the truth of democracy, (Dewey, 1937, p.457). One cannot agree to the democracy influences freedom of press, as democracy promotes choices and free will. In choosing to write a story that is someone else’s without permission suggests that there is a violation of one’s rights. Still, individuals feel the need to hide behind the belief in freedom of press and speech and destroy the lives of others.
The truth is people share information in the name of sharing the truth and they have no ethical remorse about the number of lives they can destroy in the process. Henry Giroux (2013) opines that one of the failure of a productive democracy and the hardship of political life is apparent in the increase in the number of failure in the society as it transforms its private troubles to broader civic issues, (Giroux, 2013, par. 2). In other words, the need to share information takes away from the very core of democracy where individuals reserve the right to keep information private. Arguably, freedom of the press threatens and characterizes any practical concepts of democracy in the United States at present,” (Giroux, 2013, par. 3). Similarly, the Progressive-era advocates put forward the arguments for municipal reform, in an effort to give citizens the freedom of speech, (Schieber, 1996, p. 791). Nevertheless the media and social sites continue to defy the true meaning of democracy.
One of the basic human rights is the freedom of speech. This freedom is an integral part of the international laws on human rights documents. Arguably, freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are synonymous in a democratic society. Interestingly, one measures democracy in a society by the independence of mass media or the press. Freedom of speech brings control over the maintenance of the state authorities. This demand represents the demand on democracy. A self-controlled society is one that makes it own decisions. The press allows one to become aware of the facts in the society. Arguably, freedom of speech in the press allows for a self-sufficient democratic society. The most important role of the media is to report on the events in the country and spread this information with the wider society. However, in order to distinguish the place of freedom of speech in a democratic society, the press must criticize the authorities whenever they make mistakes and entertain the citizens in an unbiased manner. The press functions on the premise that every citizen has the right to hold their opinions without interference. Therefore, the media holds the power to inform the citizens based on the right to free speech. However, free speech becomes free disasters when the press forgets that there is a balance between truth and stories.
In concluding, the freedom of the press offers individuals the right to share and hear information that impacts their lives. But, not many individuals are able to exercise caution when they hear or share information. The fact is that the freedom of speech offers positive values, but it also incites major problems if one abuses this freedom. In Mexico, a large number of reporters died in their effort to report on the increased drug trafficking policies. The need to express self becomes greater than the need for discretionary measures to fight drug trafficking. As a result, these reporters face permanent silence in their efforts to exercise the freedom of the press. Hopefully, the future will change as individuals learn to respect the need for intimacy in the free speech. One cannot hope to hold vital or detrimental information and share it readily in the name of free speech.
References
John Dewey, ‘On Democracy’, Excerpted from Dewey, ‘Democracy and Educational
Administration, School and Society 45 (April 3, 1937); 457-67.
Giroux, Henry A.(2013) “The Spectacle of Illiteracy and the Crisis of Democracy” Monday, 09
December 2013 By Henry A Giroux, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed, Viewed at
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20511-henry-giroux-the-spectacle-of-illiteracy-and-the-
crisis-of-democracy#14157571763551&action=collapse_widget&id=8412765 Accessed
November 11, 2014
Kolakowski, L 1990. ‘Dangers to Democracy’, Society May/June 1990
Ludlow, Peter, (2010, September 15) “WikiLeaks and Hacktivist Culture,” The Nation. Web.
Viewed at: < http://www.thenation.com/article/154780/wikileaks-and-hacktivist-culture>
Accessed: November 11, 2014
Pramod K. Nayar, (2011, May) “WikiLeaks, the New Information Cultures, and Digital
Parrhesia,” Journal of Technology, Theology, and Religion Volume 2, Issue 2 The
Weekly XLV. No 52 (25 Dec 2010): 27-30 Viewed at <
http://www.techandreligion.com/Resources/Nayar%20WikiLeaks%20JTTR.pdf>
Accessed November 10, 2014
“Robert D. Kaplan” (2014) Viewed at <http://www.stratfor.com/about/analysts/robert-
kaplan#axzz3In66M6DZ> Accessed November 10, 2014
Scheiber, Harry N. Foreword: The Direct Ballot and State Constitutionalism, 28 Rutgers-Cam
L.J.787 (1996),
Warren, Mark, (2010, August 13) “Julian Assange Is An Idiot. Period.” The Politics Blog
Viewed at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/new-wikileaks-documents-081310
Accessed: November 10, 2014
