In the age of social media and 24/7 connectivity, the traditional concept of free speech finds itself in a challenging and constantly evolving environment.
Freedom of speech is defined by Amnesty International as “the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.”
It does not include the right to say what you like about whoever you like, whenever you like.
Freedom of speech, as a human right comes bestowed with responsibility upon the person that wields it. Whilst in theory you could use the concept to lie, offend, or denigrate others, the general consensus among leading human rights organisations is that it can be legitimately restricted and doing these things is wrong.
In certain circumstances, freedom of speech can, and should be restricted. For example, governments and authorities have a responsibility to act on speech that incites violence and hatred, or threatens citizens leaving them fearing for their lives. In addition to this, most developed countries have civil mechanisms in place which provide for legal action against those who defame them, slander them, or cause them material or personal damage as a result of untrue or hateful statements.
According to the European Convention on Human Rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression…the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to formalities, conditison, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.”
Of course, any such restrictions on freedom of speech must be clearly laid out in national laws and should be concise enough that even a layperson understands them.
It is also worth noting the difference between public persons, private citizens, politicians, and journalists, and how they should respond to being on the receiving end of public criticism.
For example, as a private citizen I do not tolerate anyone that swears, abuses, defames, or harasses me and I reserve the right to block or restrict access to anyone that does such things. I can also take legal action against them as their actions fall out of the confines of acceptable free speech, infringing on my human rights and breaking national laws.
Whilst someone on Facebook has a right to their freedom of speech, I also have the right to block them, and if they breach my rights, to quite rightly take legal action against them if I see fit.
Likewise, as a journalist, if someone defames me, causing reputational damage and putting the safety of myself or my family in danger, I am entitled under international human rights law, and national law to take action.
The rules are slightly different when it comes to public officials such as politicians. As a general rule, they are expected to tolerate more criticism than private citizens as long as it is legitimate. Any attempt to silence a public citizen when they ask questions or criticise a public official, is considered as a restriction on freedom of speech.
Recently, US Courts ruled that Donald Trump blocking citizens on Twitter is unconstitutional because as a public person and an elected official, he is answerable to the public. If you are hounded on Twitter however, as a private person you are entitled to hit the block button and report them.
For example, Erion Veliaj blocking citizens, journalists, and NGOs on social media is an infringement of their free speech. Me blocking someone who calls me a ‘Russian Spy’ and writes false statements about me, is not.
You cannot just post unsubstantiated facts and statements about someone. If you want to criticize an individual on a public platform, you need to ensure that you can back up what you say with facts. Otherwise your ‘free speech’ becomes nothing more than an ad hominem attack, a lie, and something done with the deliberate intent to harm someone else.
It would also pass out of the realm of free speech and potentially become cyberbullying. In most Western countries, a line has been drawn between what is considered the right to an opinion (which of course includes the right to not like someone) and what constitutes as cyberbullying.
One US-definition describes cyberbullying as
“any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false, or sexual information … with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.”
Cyberbullying can be prosecuted as such in a number of countries, but other charges such as harassment, defamation, libel, and inciting hatred and violence can also be levied against them. The violation of basic rights that can result in harm, danger and emotional or material damage, can not be overridden by someone waving their fist in the air whilst shouting “Free speech!”.
You have a right to freedom of speech and to express yourself, but the person on the receiving end also has the right not to listen, and should you breach their rights, you should quite rightly face legal consequences.
Free speech is one of humanity’s most important rights and one of the most misunderstood. As responsible beings, we should use our freedom of speech to question, criticise and speak up for those who are denied theirs, but above all we should use it responsibly because it is a very powerful thing.
Follow The Balkanista!
