Freedom of Expression
Content
Abdullah 1
Hamad Abdullah
19110294
Mrs. Aqeela Zaman
SS100: Writing and Communication
29 October 2015
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Speech is the greatest blessing endowed upon mankind. Words and expressions
carry magical power which explains why human beings have always been debating about
the need for code of one’s expressions in context of its aftermath. Just Like any other
freedom, expressions should be absolutely free as well or there is a need to specify a limit
to this freedom. Is it the fundamental right of people to say whatever they want,
whenever they want it without any pressure or the responsibility lies with the leaders to
decide what should be the limitations of common peoples’ expressions? The need to solve
the contention has gained special importance in 21st century because of a common
exposure to communications and media through globalization. Even though the freedom
of expression is an essence of democracy yet this freedom should be restricted to prevent
people from getting harmed physically or mentally, to stop hate speeches on any basis, to
Abdullah 2
stop incitements which prevail violence in society and to help nations develop mutual
cooperation for common benefits.
In order to realize importance of restricting expressions of people, first it is
important to define “expression” and “restrictions”. Expression has a very diverse
meaning in itself. People may use speech, media, writing, actions or any other possible
source to express their reactions or feelings. Restrictions mean to confine expressions of
society reasonably so that they might be held responsible for what they express and for its
effects. Restrictions should be reasonable and pragmatic enough to ensure that the results
of one’s expressions are affecting his self only and do not in any way harm others.
According to Zechariah Chafee “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose starts”
(957).
The foremost advantage of restricting freedom of expression is the insurance of
physical and mental security of people. In order to highlight how harmful freedom of
expression can be for life of people consider a hypothetical situation in which a man is
standing amidst a huge crowd of people in a confined space like a hall. Suddenly he
starts shouting “fire! Fire” loudly and the next moment a havoc broke up in the crowd.
The results could be disastrous and many people may get killed in the stampede. And
once the murderer is presented before court he may justify his act of shouting as his right
to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to. This proves how a man responsible for
killings and injuries of several people can take the plea of freedom of expression.
In order to prove how important the restriction of freedom of expression is for the
psychological security of common people let’s consider the event when blasphemous
Abdullah 3
content was published by Danish newspaper against Muslims. “In September 2005, the
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet
Muhammad as a deliberate attempt to assert the right to freedom of expression.” ( Jyllands-
Posten). The event provoked frustration and psychological instability among the Muslims
because of high level of sensitivity and affection they have for their religion and prophet .
Worldwide protests were carried out as the followers of second largest religion of the
world were harassed on the basis of their religion. Violence prevailed “resulting in over
200 deaths” (Jyllands-Posten). The newspaper had clearly exercised the freedom of
expression to mentally harm over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Charlie Hebdo, a
satirical French magazine, also got encouraged by the event and continued the publishing
of blasphemous sketches against Muslims. The situation got out of control. The Muslim
community lost its tolerance and many attacks were planned on all such offices who were
involved in the blasphemy. Ultimately these events shook the whole world and
highlighted how important it is to put limits on freedom of expression. Expressions carry
great power and wrong exercise of this power greatly harms societies physically and
mentally.
Second advantage of restricting this freedom is to stop hate speeches. Hate speech
is delivered to segregate people and to judge them on the basis of their caste color and
creed. It is the responsibility of the government to keep a check on what is being exposed
to its common people because an easy access to internet and trend of pluralistic social set
up in which people from diverse cultures live together can make hate speech vulnerable
to an uncontrollable extent. The hate speech and its effects can be highlighted by example
of holocaust denial. The holocaust highlights a general massacre of around 6 million Jews
Abdullah 4
during World War 2. Holocaust denial is a theory which refers to hate speech against
Jews. It states that holocaust actually never took place and is a fabricated story by Jews to
earn the sympathy of the world and to justify the existence of Israel. This was mere one
issue. Every religion, every culture and every society has its own sensitivities and beliefs.
If freedom of expression is granted to people they may start comparing, challenging and
discriminating these beliefs through hate speeches. Hence, to stop exploitation of such
sensitivities, to stop people from judging and labeling others through their own cultural
views, freedom of expression should be restricted.
Third advantage of putting limits on freedom of expression is to ensure people
don’t incite others to illegal acts. As described earlier words and expressions carry great
power and skillful presentation of lies may make them look attractive and influential to
common people and immature teenagers. It is very important to keep a check on the issue
that expressions of people are not meant to misguide society. To highlight how
devastating incitement can be for the society consider the example of Taliban. Taliban
incited tribal areas of Pakistan against their own country through false interpretations of
Islam. They prevailed the belief that they were true followers of Islam and Pakistan was
not an Islamic state under current leadership. They presented it as their right to freedom
of expression. Many people believed them and agreed to present their lives for the
purposes and activities of Taliban. The banned outfit easily got manpower to spread
violence and terrorism throughout the country. Unfortunately, Pakistan suffered from
irreparable damages for almost one decade because of freedom of expression exercised
by Taliban. In short, to stop people from inciting others to revolt or to do crimes, it is
necessary to put limits to freedom of expression.
Abdullah 5
The fourth benefit of restricting freedom of expression is to create harmony
among the nations who can then work together for common benefits. To emphasize its
need let’s take a look at current relationships of Pakistan with India. Since 1947, Pakistan
and India have been on hostile terms with each other. Even though many efforts have
been made to create peace between two neighboring countries who are spending a large
amount of budget in a fight against each other instead of spending it on health and
education, yet the efforts have always been blocked by violent actions and hate speeches
of political activist groups like Shiv Sena and tensions again start intensifying between
two nations nullifying all the efforts made so far. Had such parties been restricted in their
expressions against other country to promote peace between India and Pakistan, there
would have been a great economic progress through trades and cuts from defense budgets
benefiting both countries.
We now know how harmful freedom of expression can be but a picture always
has its other side as well. Freedom of expression also has some advantages and one of
them is its role in improving democratic systems. It brings accountability to government
and helps the leaders to know their shortcomings and problems of their society. It helps
people speak up against suppressions. Justice prevails in society and does not let the
powerful to create their monopoly. There is no deny to the importance of freedom of
expression in a political system but then again sometimes this freedom is exercised to
create contempt of courts and other respected leadership posts. Imagine someone who
starts publishing articles criticizing the president, prime minister, chief justice or any
other reputable institutions on personal issues instead of criticizing their duties. It would
create a hatred and distrust among people towards their leaders making it difficult for the
Abdullah 6
leaders to lead after such defaming. This again highlights the importance of drawing a
line which expressions of people should not cross. The solution does not lie in giving
everybody a chance to openly criticize the government policies but a group should be
specified who has the particular knowledge and uses freedom of expression for a
constructive and rational critique.
In the nutshell, freedom of expression gives people the right to harass others on
the basis of cast, religion or creed which may destabilize the internal as well as external
relationships of society to an uncontrollable extent. The need of hour is to realize the fact
that man is meant to live within limits so that his evil nature never springs up. He is liable
to punishment if his expressions harm others in any way. The famous harm principle of
J.S Mill summarizes the whole claim as “power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, in order to prevent harm to others”
(30).
(1541 Words)
Abdullah 7
Works Citied
Chafee, Zechariah. "Freedom of Speech in War Time." Harvard Law Review 32.8 (1919): 957.
Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/1327107 >
"Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy." Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons
Controversy. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, n.d. Web. 29 Oct.
2015.
<http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/em-jyllands-posten-em-muhammad-
cartoons-controversy>
Mill, John Stuart. J.S. Mill, On Liberty in Focus. Ed. John Gray and G. W. Smith. London: Rout
ledge, 1991. Print.
Hamad Abdullah
19110294
Mrs. Aqeela Zaman
SS100: Writing and Communication
29 October 2015
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Speech is the greatest blessing endowed upon mankind. Words and expressions
carry magical power which explains why human beings have always been debating about
the need for code of one’s expressions in context of its aftermath. Just Like any other
freedom, expressions should be absolutely free as well or there is a need to specify a limit
to this freedom. Is it the fundamental right of people to say whatever they want,
whenever they want it without any pressure or the responsibility lies with the leaders to
decide what should be the limitations of common peoples’ expressions? The need to solve
the contention has gained special importance in 21st century because of a common
exposure to communications and media through globalization. Even though the freedom
of expression is an essence of democracy yet this freedom should be restricted to prevent
people from getting harmed physically or mentally, to stop hate speeches on any basis, to
Abdullah 2
stop incitements which prevail violence in society and to help nations develop mutual
cooperation for common benefits.
In order to realize importance of restricting expressions of people, first it is
important to define “expression” and “restrictions”. Expression has a very diverse
meaning in itself. People may use speech, media, writing, actions or any other possible
source to express their reactions or feelings. Restrictions mean to confine expressions of
society reasonably so that they might be held responsible for what they express and for its
effects. Restrictions should be reasonable and pragmatic enough to ensure that the results
of one’s expressions are affecting his self only and do not in any way harm others.
According to Zechariah Chafee “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose starts”
(957).
The foremost advantage of restricting freedom of expression is the insurance of
physical and mental security of people. In order to highlight how harmful freedom of
expression can be for life of people consider a hypothetical situation in which a man is
standing amidst a huge crowd of people in a confined space like a hall. Suddenly he
starts shouting “fire! Fire” loudly and the next moment a havoc broke up in the crowd.
The results could be disastrous and many people may get killed in the stampede. And
once the murderer is presented before court he may justify his act of shouting as his right
to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to. This proves how a man responsible for
killings and injuries of several people can take the plea of freedom of expression.
In order to prove how important the restriction of freedom of expression is for the
psychological security of common people let’s consider the event when blasphemous
Abdullah 3
content was published by Danish newspaper against Muslims. “In September 2005, the
Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet
Muhammad as a deliberate attempt to assert the right to freedom of expression.” ( Jyllands-
Posten). The event provoked frustration and psychological instability among the Muslims
because of high level of sensitivity and affection they have for their religion and prophet .
Worldwide protests were carried out as the followers of second largest religion of the
world were harassed on the basis of their religion. Violence prevailed “resulting in over
200 deaths” (Jyllands-Posten). The newspaper had clearly exercised the freedom of
expression to mentally harm over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Charlie Hebdo, a
satirical French magazine, also got encouraged by the event and continued the publishing
of blasphemous sketches against Muslims. The situation got out of control. The Muslim
community lost its tolerance and many attacks were planned on all such offices who were
involved in the blasphemy. Ultimately these events shook the whole world and
highlighted how important it is to put limits on freedom of expression. Expressions carry
great power and wrong exercise of this power greatly harms societies physically and
mentally.
Second advantage of restricting this freedom is to stop hate speeches. Hate speech
is delivered to segregate people and to judge them on the basis of their caste color and
creed. It is the responsibility of the government to keep a check on what is being exposed
to its common people because an easy access to internet and trend of pluralistic social set
up in which people from diverse cultures live together can make hate speech vulnerable
to an uncontrollable extent. The hate speech and its effects can be highlighted by example
of holocaust denial. The holocaust highlights a general massacre of around 6 million Jews
Abdullah 4
during World War 2. Holocaust denial is a theory which refers to hate speech against
Jews. It states that holocaust actually never took place and is a fabricated story by Jews to
earn the sympathy of the world and to justify the existence of Israel. This was mere one
issue. Every religion, every culture and every society has its own sensitivities and beliefs.
If freedom of expression is granted to people they may start comparing, challenging and
discriminating these beliefs through hate speeches. Hence, to stop exploitation of such
sensitivities, to stop people from judging and labeling others through their own cultural
views, freedom of expression should be restricted.
Third advantage of putting limits on freedom of expression is to ensure people
don’t incite others to illegal acts. As described earlier words and expressions carry great
power and skillful presentation of lies may make them look attractive and influential to
common people and immature teenagers. It is very important to keep a check on the issue
that expressions of people are not meant to misguide society. To highlight how
devastating incitement can be for the society consider the example of Taliban. Taliban
incited tribal areas of Pakistan against their own country through false interpretations of
Islam. They prevailed the belief that they were true followers of Islam and Pakistan was
not an Islamic state under current leadership. They presented it as their right to freedom
of expression. Many people believed them and agreed to present their lives for the
purposes and activities of Taliban. The banned outfit easily got manpower to spread
violence and terrorism throughout the country. Unfortunately, Pakistan suffered from
irreparable damages for almost one decade because of freedom of expression exercised
by Taliban. In short, to stop people from inciting others to revolt or to do crimes, it is
necessary to put limits to freedom of expression.
Abdullah 5
The fourth benefit of restricting freedom of expression is to create harmony
among the nations who can then work together for common benefits. To emphasize its
need let’s take a look at current relationships of Pakistan with India. Since 1947, Pakistan
and India have been on hostile terms with each other. Even though many efforts have
been made to create peace between two neighboring countries who are spending a large
amount of budget in a fight against each other instead of spending it on health and
education, yet the efforts have always been blocked by violent actions and hate speeches
of political activist groups like Shiv Sena and tensions again start intensifying between
two nations nullifying all the efforts made so far. Had such parties been restricted in their
expressions against other country to promote peace between India and Pakistan, there
would have been a great economic progress through trades and cuts from defense budgets
benefiting both countries.
We now know how harmful freedom of expression can be but a picture always
has its other side as well. Freedom of expression also has some advantages and one of
them is its role in improving democratic systems. It brings accountability to government
and helps the leaders to know their shortcomings and problems of their society. It helps
people speak up against suppressions. Justice prevails in society and does not let the
powerful to create their monopoly. There is no deny to the importance of freedom of
expression in a political system but then again sometimes this freedom is exercised to
create contempt of courts and other respected leadership posts. Imagine someone who
starts publishing articles criticizing the president, prime minister, chief justice or any
other reputable institutions on personal issues instead of criticizing their duties. It would
create a hatred and distrust among people towards their leaders making it difficult for the
Abdullah 6
leaders to lead after such defaming. This again highlights the importance of drawing a
line which expressions of people should not cross. The solution does not lie in giving
everybody a chance to openly criticize the government policies but a group should be
specified who has the particular knowledge and uses freedom of expression for a
constructive and rational critique.
In the nutshell, freedom of expression gives people the right to harass others on
the basis of cast, religion or creed which may destabilize the internal as well as external
relationships of society to an uncontrollable extent. The need of hour is to realize the fact
that man is meant to live within limits so that his evil nature never springs up. He is liable
to punishment if his expressions harm others in any way. The famous harm principle of
J.S Mill summarizes the whole claim as “power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, in order to prevent harm to others”
(30).
(1541 Words)
Abdullah 7
Works Citied
Chafee, Zechariah. "Freedom of Speech in War Time." Harvard Law Review 32.8 (1919): 957.
Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/1327107 >
"Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy." Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons
Controversy. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, n.d. Web. 29 Oct.
2015.
<http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/em-jyllands-posten-em-muhammad-
cartoons-controversy>
Mill, John Stuart. J.S. Mill, On Liberty in Focus. Ed. John Gray and G. W. Smith. London: Rout
ledge, 1991. Print.
