The Limits of the Freedom of Expression: Why It Is Not Absolute

As much as many people might desire it, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. With rights come responsibilities, and there are acknowledged limitations on the privilege of free expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states the importance of recognizing and respecting the rights and freedoms of others while maintaining moral and public order in a democratic society. The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also acknowledges that freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, such as protecting the rights and reputations of others or ensuring national security. Moreover, Freedom of Expression may sometimes conflict with other rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and security of individuals; the right to equal protection against discrimination; and the right to privacy, family, home, and correspondence.

Why the Freedom of Expression is Not Absolute

It is an error to believe that free expression is absolute. It is not the freedom to speak one's mind without government interference, but rather the freedom to express oneself without any interference at all. Freedom of Expression is a vital human right essential for a democratic society. It enables the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information, allowing individuals to form their own views on matters of public importance. Freedom of Expression promotes public discourse and supports a free and independent press, informed citizenship, and the transparent functioning of the state. However, this fundamental human right is often restricted through various policies, including censorship, restrictive press laws, and harassment of journalists, bloggers, and individuals expressing their opinions. It is also hindered by crackdowns on religious minorities and the suppression of religious freedom.

It should be noted that Freedom of Expression is not an absolute human right like the right not to be tortured or enslaved. To determine acceptable restrictions, we must look elsewhere. Freedom of Expression protects almost all forms of communication, regardless of the content or tone of the message. It covers various expressions, such as writing a comment on a web portal, playing music in public, displaying an advertisement on a street, or wearing a shirt expressing a specific idea. While Freedom of Expression safeguards individuals from unwarranted restrictions on their expressions, it does not guarantee access to the means of expressing their ideas. For example, a magazine or web portal can refuse to publish an article or comment, and a social media company may remove a comment. Freedom can be defined as negative freedom, meaning you are free to the extent that no one interferes with what you are doing. This definition lies at the core of classical liberalism and libertarianism: no one should be interfered with as long as they do not interfere with others' freedom to act as they see fit.

The alternative perspective is that of positive freedom: by this definition, you are free to pursue a specific course defined by the authorities. This definition lies at the core of social authoritarianism: the government intervenes through control and redistribution. Economic means of doing so are inherently limited and typically serve the interests of one group of people by restricting what others can do. The distinction between the two concepts should be evident: a social order based on positive freedom is characterized by a limited set of permissions granted to individuals by the authorities. A social order based on negative freedom is characterized by the infinite number of uses that free individuals can make of their intellectual and material resources when they are simply left alone. Positive freedom belongs to a framework where the "state organizes the nation, but... leaves the individual sufficient elbow room." Negative freedom establishes a principle that protects the individual and limits the power of the state.

Limits of the Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression has limits and does not cover all expressions. Hate speech is not protected by Freedom of Expression and is a punishable offense. Hate speech involves the expression, spreading, or endorsement of hatred and violence against an individual or a group of people based on certain characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, beliefs, or health condition. Hate speech is contrary to the fundamental values of a democratic society, and the state can, therefore, legally prevent or penalize it.

In any civilized country, society thrives through exchanges, diverse perspectives, different philosophies, and ideologies. A society where there is no freedom to voice one's thoughts and expressions is a closed society belonging to the medieval era of oppression, violence, and religious fundamentalism. Bangladesh serves as an example of such attitudes and political bigotry. In a country where religious minorities live in constant fear and are treated as second-class citizens, editors and media personnel are imprisoned for publishing such news. Prominent Bengali author Taslima Nasreen, known worldwide, was targeted for revealing the constant atrocities towards the Hindus of Bangladesh by the government and Islamic clergy in her book 'Lajja.' Similar situations have occurred in the case of Salman Rushdie, a British-Indian author, whose life was constantly in danger due to fatwas issued against him by Muslim countries for his book 'The Satanic Verses.' This level of prejudice is a consequence of the non-existent rights of Expression in these countries, where ideologies have not evolved beyond the medieval ages and religious fundamentalism.

Afghanistan and Pakistan serve as relevant examples of such closed societies. Afghanistan was recently released from the grip of a Taliban-supported government that held its citizens in a terrible and oppressive state. Any deviation from their dictates meant public humiliation, beatings, and even death. There was no room for individual principles or the right to freedom of Expression. An oppressive society where the first right of Expression is stripped away makes a fair and just social system impossible. Even in situations where interests may conflict, the ability to express objections is vital for securing rights and defending interests. Therefore, in all enlightened and democratic constitutions, the right to freedom of Expression is protected.

Freedom of Expression has become a powerful tool for change and redressal of grievances in most parts of the world. Technological advancements, especially the Internet, have provided people across the globe with platforms to express their voices. However, limitations or restrictions related to Freedom of Expression must be observed. Expressions should be made with responsibility and not without it. Restrictions come into play when freedom of expression conflicts with other values or rights, such as hate speech or offensive content. Limitations may occur through legal sanctions or social disapproval.

The Internet has provided a great platform for the freedom of expression of thought and discourse on a broader scale. However, it has also led to the regulation and control of information on the web, ensuring that the dissemination or access to information should not be misused to harm others' sentiments on a particular subject being discussed at any level. The false notion is that free speech is absolute. The belief that freedom of expression means the freedom to speak one's mind without government interference is impractical. In practice, however, this essential human right is often restricted through policies that include censorship, restrictive press laws, and harassment of journalists, bloggers, and individuals expressing their opinions. It is also hindered by crackdowns on religious minorities and the suppression of religious freedom.

In today's world, democratic governments face several challenges related to freedom of expression. The biggest challenge is how to ensure a balance between providing freedom of expression while maintaining law and order, peace, and security within a diverse society with different views, religions, and beliefs. Even in the most liberal democracies like the US, Freedom of Expression is conditionally restricted.

These restrictions are based on experiences that make us realize that there is no such thing as absolute freedom of expression because unbridled use of this freedom would undoubtedly bring chaos and turmoil. Internationally, it is not recognized as an unrestricted right, as every democracy has established some form of limitations in connection with freedom of expression.

Similarly, like other democracies, Pakistan ensures freedom of expression under certain restrictions concerning religion and national security. This paper aims to examine the current status and emerging trends of Freedom of Expression in Pakistan. It also seeks to explore the key elements and actors that play a crucial role in defining the subject paradigm. The right to freedom of expression should not be absolute and should be subject to limitations. Humanity has already realized this and imposed limitations on Freedom of Expression.

Conclusion

If we observe, over time we'll find that everything has its limits. For example, the amount of food we eat, the time spent playing in water and sun, how far we can run, how much we read, and even what and how we think about things. It's a fundamental lesson. Our vehicles have limits, our devices have limits, and so does our lifespan. In essence, everything in our lives is limited. On the other hand, absolute freedom of expression would mean no restrictions on anyone for anything they would want to say or do. While most of us enjoy the freedom to express ourselves as we choose, we must also remember that our choices always impact others, either for good or for evil. Everything comes at a cost, and being mindful of this consequence is wise. We should not try to imagine that anyone has absolute freedom to do or say whatever they want.

References

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - United Nations General Assembly. (1948). United Nations.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - United Nations General Assembly. (1966). United Nations.
3. Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
4. Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty (pp. 118-172). Oxford University Press.
5. Volokh, E. (2015). Freedom of Speech and the Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States.
6. Posner, E. A. (1992). The Myth of the First Amendment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 59(1), 1-46.
7. Zick, T. (2017). The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties. Columbia University Press.