The exploration of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was profoundly examined through a case study involving a young climate activist. This right, central to liberal societies, allows individuals to express their thoughts and ideas without the fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Furthermore, it inhibits governmental control over information, preventing censorship and promoting the free exchange of ideas.
However, an essential understanding to this right lies in grasping its limitations – it is not absolute. Freedom of speech protects the sharing of opinions, regardless of their basis or sentiment, but does not extend its protection to factually inaccurate statements. This key distinction between opinion and fact is crucial in comprehending the application and boundaries of freedom of speech.
In parallel to verbal and written expression, the right to peaceful assembly is another facet of freedom of expression. Starting with a minimum of two individuals, peaceful assemblies are formed around a common purpose. However, similar to freedom of speech, this right demands that assemblies do not threaten public safety through violent behaviors or weapon possession.
The power of exercising these rights can have a significant global impact, as demonstrated by the climate activist whose actions galvanized millions worldwide to express their concerns about climate change. Yet, it’s crucial to note that the privilege to voice opinions is not universally available.
This exploration of freedom of expression thus presents essential questions for contemplation: Does society need more or less freedom of expression? Where are its boundaries? Such queries remain open-ended for continued discussion and debate.
The concept of freedom of speech and its application was explored through a case study of a 15-year-old climate activist. Despite facing criticism and adversity, the young activist demonstrated the power of this fundamental human right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to express opinions and assemble peacefully.
Freedom of speech is a principle that underpins our ability to express opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal consequences. It is a protective shield for all forms of communication, ranging from verbal expression to written text to artistic works, and is a central tenet of liberal societies. In addition to enabling the sharing of opinions, it also involves access to information to inhibit censorship and restrict governmental control over what should and shouldn’t be known or stated.
However, freedom of speech is not absolute. It does not grant permission to present something as a fact that can be objectively disproved. An opinion, regardless of whether it is justified or baseless, emotional or rational, valuable or worthless, is protected under the freedom of speech. Conversely, a factual statement, which is susceptible to verification, is not shielded under this freedom. This distinction is crucial in understanding when and how freedom of speech applies.
In addition to verbal and written expression, forming an assembly is another way of expressing opinions. This usually starts with two individuals coming together for a common purpose. However, like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly also has limitations. Assemblies must be peaceful and not pose a threat to public safety, which can be compromised by actions such as carrying weapons or engaging in violent behavior.
The impact of exercising the rights of freedom of speech and assembly can be immense. The climate activist’s actions led to millions of people around the world voicing their concerns about climate change. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that not everyone is fortunate enough to live in societies where expressing opinions is possible.
The exploration of freedom of expression, therefore, raises several questions. Do we need more or less of it? When does it begin and where does it end? These questions are left open for further contemplation and discussion.
This is Greta Thunberg and
this is the Swedish parliament.
Thunberg is 15 years old, and she is
doing a “school strike for climate”.
Sitting there alone, she is smiled
at and even insulted. Some say,
go back to school. Others tell her to give up.
But she doesn’t want to listen and
continues. And soon there are a few others,
who like her ideas and admire her commitment.
And then, one day, the local press comes, does an
interview and Greta’s photo goes around the world.
The few that joined Greta soon became
many and many became millions and in
countries all around the world young
people began expressing their opinions
about climate change because they
want to build a better future.
Greta used rights that are laid down
in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Accordingly, everyone has the
right to express their opinion freely
and to meet freely and peacefully with others.
So what exactly is freedom of speech and where
does it end?
of speech is a principle that supports our
freedom to articulate opinions and ideas
without the fear of retaliation,
censorship, or legal sanction.
It protects all forms of communication,
from speech, to text, to art and
is a constitutional law of liberal societies.
Freedom of speech includes having access
to information to prevent censorship,
and limits state control over what we
should and what we shouldn’t know and say.
It means freedom to express an
opinion regardless of whether
the opinion is justified or unfounded,
emotional or rational, valuable or not.
And it means you are also allowed to
remain silent and say nothing at all.
One form of expressing your
opinion is forming an assembly,
which usually begins with 2 people, who
come together with a common purpose.
But freedom of speech has its limitations.
For example, it doesn’t mean we
can state something as a fact
if it can be proven wrong by objective standards.
So when Greta says: “The global biosphere is
being sacrificed so that rich people can live
in luxury” she expresses an opinion, because
her claim cannot be objectively verified.
But when she begins a speech with: “My name
is Greta Thunberg, I am 15 years old. I am
from Sweden” then that’s a factual assertion,
because you can check if that’s all correct.
In other words: The first statement
is protected by the freedom of speech,
because it forms an opinion.
Greta introducing herself is nice,
but it’s not protected, because it is
just a factual statement which can be
verified. Also not protected is insulting
others or the assertion of untrue facts.
Freedom of assembly also has its limits.
Gatherings must take place peacefully
and must not jeopardize public safety,
which can happen if people bring arms,
or riot and become violent. So Greta is allowed
to sit in front of the parliament with posters,
but she is not allowed to smear
the building with slogans.
Greta used her freedom of speech to inspire
millions to help put climate change on top of
the political agenda. And while we certainly want
more people to stand up for what they believe in,
many of us live in societies in which
expressing one’s opinions isn’t possible.
So what do you think about freedom of
expression? Do we need more? Do we need
less? Where does it start and where does it
end? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
If you found this helpful, check
out our other videos and subscribe.
If you want to support our work,
join us on patreon.com/sprouts.
For more information and additional
contents, visit sproutsschools.com
– Media must be held accountable for its motivations, separating facts from opinions, and providing a broader context.
– Insults can be legally protected as they are considered opinions, exceptions are defamation of character (libel or slander).
– Speech is not protected when it incites panic, conspires to commit a crime or infringes copyright.
– An opinion cannot be categorized as true or false until it is proven.
– Freedom of speech can be manipulated and violated if limitations are imposed due to unverified information or insults.
– Freedom of speech should be limited only when it brings immediate harm to others.
– There is a need to understand when it is appropriate to voice an opinion and distinguish between opinion and fact.
– Freedom of speech should never be used as a state-controlled tool.
– Freedom of speech is under threat in certain environments, particularly in universities.
– The definition of insult is subjective, making it difficult to determine what is considered as an insult under free speech.
– True facts should be protected, opinions are acceptable, but inciting illegal action is not.
– Freedom of thought is crucial without which freedom of speech becomes less meaningful.
– Freedom of speech becomes meaningless if there is only one acceptable line of thought.
Leave a Reply