FREEDOM OF SPEECH/EXPRESSION IS NOT ABSOLUTE

The debate is based on the importance of freedom of expression/speech and the valuable characteristic of western society. Arguments are produced in the debate to support the view that media has to be at liberty to publish what they want. Blackstone and Gibbon’s view is that liberty of press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state and every free man has undoubted right to place what sentiments he pleases before the public. Also that media has come to play a significant part with regard to the need for political choice being justified. Therefore, argument in favour of defence of press freedom rests almost entirely on interests of community not individual.

To ensure that everyone is treated equally regardless of their race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin and religion, racially offensive behaviour must not be tolerated. Unacceptable offensive racialist expression might include: making a racially abusive comment in a public place e.g. shops, workplace, public transport etc and also offensive racist comments in a newspaper or other publications.

Don’t we really need a world (society) where we tolerate one another’s views and opinions?

Without individual freedom of expression, lifestyle and liberty, general welfare of a society is not possible. There is only one purpose for which law can be used against a citizen is to prevention of harm to other citizens (Mill’s “no harm principle”) and the idea that there is no area which law cannot touch whether private or public (Devline’s idea).
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (subject to certain restrictions) adopted in 1948. Also the European Convention on Human Rights and the1998 Human Rights Act U.K. declares freedom of expression with a number of limitations.
It is an offence of inciting hatred against persons on the ground of their religion.

There is a line to be drawn between the right to freedom of expression as balanced against the need for members of all communities not to experience racism and differential treatment in their everyday lives.

The issues of free expression today are significantly different from the issues that tackled by Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States in 1919. People who blindly support the action of the media and press forget that the idea of freedom of expression develops and extends as history progresses.

Should a person be allowed to express something which makes another person racially or religiously offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated? My answer is ‘no’.

A person’s sense of morality lessens when his or her freedom increases. Law is to lessen harmful freedom of this person against the society.

Who knows!

Do you know that we can do much much better to stand before the world with pride, progress and prosperity?

Just need to be aware of:

"I am the mountain, I stay & remember".

Time to wake up!

"...and how many times can a man turn his head And pretend that he just doesn’t see...
...and how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry...
...and how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died".

Bob Dylan.

Proclaim Hero - Proclaim: My head is held ever towering...

I sing the song of equality, in unison

The new-born is here, we'll have to make room for it