Introduction
My starting point when it comes to the consideration of any issue relating to the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression and the freedom of opinion, is my very passionate belief that the general stance behind this controversial topic is that of supportance towards it. And to its credit, supporting the existence of this is of paramount importance both to respect our basic human rights and also to foster a society of which allows the free-flow of true information about all topics without exception. In quotations towards Rowan Atkinson’s speech about the reformation of Section 5 under the Public Order Act 1986 within British law, “The second most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself freely. The most precious thing in life I think, is food in your mouth and the third most precious, is a roof over your head but a fixture in the Number 2 slot for me is free expression, just below the need to sustain life itself.” This excerpt alone is sufficient enough to generalise the consensus among most people within society towards the freedom of speech and expression.
However, though it might seem foolish to some, today’s discussion upon this topic would highlight previously unaccounted for perspectives, some of which might even be deemed negative. It is said that one would be wise to have a deep analysis upon the pros and cons of a certain subject/topic before making a subjective conclusion, and I would argue that this saying applies fittingly as well within the argument about freedom of speech. I would like to make it clear that I am in full support towards this given freedom and that also I am aware of the grueling pain those before me had to endure so that this undoubtedly privileged position is afforded to those of the modern members of society. The main objective of this text is to give a stern warning, both to the effects of limiting expression and overindulging expression.
Definition
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. It must be given emphasis that this freedom is significant and decisive in directing the course of development of certain societies. This is due to the fact that it has always been used to fight for change throughout history. To illustrate, misogynistic societies, which deemed women inferior to men, were deliberately abolished and reformed into a society of equity because of the strong opposition from both the general public and women rights activists. The said oppositions and confrontations would not be possible without the inherent freedom of relevant groups to express their opinions free from government censorship. Henceforth, it is with the help of the decisions and voices of the people that allow society to improve from its previous faults, by enforcing good societal norms and abandoning those that are inappropriate for the modern age.
Additionally, this said entitlement also allows the formation of robust societies, of which houses different unique cultures and ways of life. Owing to the fact that everyone is given a voice regardless of their social status, the public intrinsically learns to be open minded as a form of adaptation to the constant flow of different ideas and thoughts. This absolute acceptance towards any statements and opinions put forth, even if it contains elements of disagreement, translates as an embrace towards integration within one’s society as well.
Hence, it is of utmost responsibility for the general public and the government to safeguard the freedom of speech and expression. Although this statement still holds firm, it is seen that recent observations paint an entirely different picture, especially within eastern societies. When comparing the east with the west, it is definite that the east still remains somewhat conservative towards basic morals and principles, of which has guided them for millennia rightfully so; whilst the west, due to its colourful history of revolutions, colonialism, war and distinctive eras of enlightenment, abandons the status quo for a more free and liberal life. This contrast within their histories has paved the way for the fruition of totally polar opposites when it comes to general ideology, both of which has their respective pros and cons. It is their differences in culture which I wish to delve more into.
The Eastern Perspective
Beginning with the east, it could be observed that in most countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia etc, their methods of conduct are more collective and morally based. This collectivism within eastern culture ensues clauses; fostering group success instead of individual achievement, promoting adherence to social norms such as respecting authorities or elders instead of promoting self-expression and individual thinking and associating with stable and hierarchical roles instead of egalitarian relationships and flexibility in roles. To their credit, this sense of social responsibility has garnered much success in the context of societal stability as the general public are pursuing their endeavors with their communities in mind. This grounded way of life is quite helpful in preventing criminal conduct and potentially terroristic actions. But on the other hand, the nature of respecting authorities and elders also brought about a prohibition of opposition from younger generations. In eastern societies, it is commonly deemed disgraceful if one were to confront and argue with an elder about an idea or topic. This might be because of the unwillingness of opinionated elderlies to accept newer and potentially better substitutes to their methodologies. Hence, the younger generations with more liberal and open-minded thoughts are usually censored from general discussions. Added on with ever-encouraged suppressions through legislation from the older generations towards radical and liberal ideas, this issue is further worsened. This intolerance towards insults and criticism is the reason why eastern cultures remain conservative with old principles, some of which are not even relevant in this day and age.
As I have said before, society can only improve by allowing arguments between parties to ensue, ultimately letting them come to a middle ground and therefore, altering the old conducts with new influences with the aim of improvement. Underlying prejudices, resentments or injustices are not addressed by suppressing certain people; they are addressed by airing the issue and letting people debate upon the issue without legislative interventions or prohibitions by older generations, even if offensive and insulting speech are used. I believe that our society has to build its immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with real and serious social problems. As with diseases, you can better resist the germs to which you have been exposed to; and as with insulting and offensive speech, the best way to increase our resistance towards it is to allow a lot more of it.
Now it seems like the east has an issue of somewhat limiting the freedom of some groups, especially that of the younger generations to express their stance on an ongoing issue or taboo, but how are the conditions of the west?
The Western Perspective
The west, through its centuries of constant war, industrial revolutions and ideological evolutions, has taken on a more individualistic culture. This form of culture is in stark contrast to its eastern equivalent, prioritising human independence and freedom, promoting personal choice and individual thinking, viewing individuals as separate independent units, concerning the wellbeing of themselves or immediate social circles only etc. The emphasis on freedom and independence, coinciding with the lack of an ancient moral guide allows them more breathing space to improve their way of life without much hinderance from any group or party. The younger generations in the west are given adequate attention to their ideas and opinions even from a young age, of which greatly encourages further independence from simple hierarchies and governance. Their free-thinking nature is the essence and main driving factor towards their success internationally. Although this given freedom towards their society has brought about fundamental changes on how we view our world today, there are numerous undiscussed side effects that lurk in the darkness, one of which will be greatly highlighted next.
A general statement could be made that hardly anyone had ever questioned the negative aspects of free speech and expression, in particular the exaggeration of this given right. From my personal observations whilst using the Internet and social media sites, I saw a form of “idiotic individualism” within western society, which is further made clear to me at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. When the novel coronavirus initially spread to the entire world, the west suffered the brunt of the impact even though it was not the first region to be affected. It would be wise to also take into consideration the major advantages the west had in terms of medical accessibility, but yet the statistics show an embarrassingly high number of daily cases and admittance into hospitals. While the east followed government restrictions and regulations in efforts to curb this pandemic, the west did not partake in the same fate, opting to choose their personal freedom over social responsibilities. The western public, especially those within conservative groups, held protests against the lockdowns and the mask mandates, stating that these regulations and rules were an instance of constitutional breach, and that their rights as a citizen is deliberately violated. I would like to reiterate this statement. The rules and regulations, those which was imposed to keep members of society safe and protected from this virus, is being called upon as a political attack on democracy and it being a tyrannical decision by government officials. To put it simply, how dumb, stupid, brainless, foolish, dim-witted, moronic and idiotic could one to use their god given freedom of expression to vouch for the removal of a public safety protocol? This intrinsically evil use of free expression in the west completely demonstrates the harmful effects of free expression when not kept in check. Besides this incident, “Karens”, who are essentially obnoxious, self-entitled, racist middle-aged women, use their “privileges and rights” as a citizen of the “free world” to get her way or to police other people’s behaviour. This self-entitlement, of which is seen in both anti-maskers and “Karens”, are the fruits of overusing their freedom.
Although the above actions by these individuals could not be treated as criminal offences, it should be made clear that their actions are logically and morally wrong. People are so self-absorbed into their individualistic values to the point that they neglect the well-being of others and the well-being of the society which they live in, and this, in my opinion, is the main problem about western culture. The lacking emphasis on social responsibility and moral principles would most likely be their downfall if major complications arise in the near future. Henceforth, I believe that certain measures must be taken to educate the younger generations to use their freedom appropriately. Increased guardianship and proper education on free speech must be done to prevent exploitations of free expression. A refined perspective that focuses on communal wellbeing and societal improvement could be a good substitution for pure individualism as members of society could use that freedom to innovate and improve their communities.
Conclusion
In short, what I am suggesting is that both eastern and western societies have aspects which are inherently good and aspects which are inherently bad. Therefore, for the sake of a universal and truly globalised world, it would be wise to combine the two ideologies instead of vouching for only one of them. Again, it is a repeat of what is stated at the start, using free speech and expression to “enforce good societal norms and abandon those that are inappropriate for the modern age”. The emphasis on good moral values, pursuing group success and the interdependence among people in the east, combined with the emphasis on human innovation and freedom, uniqueness and autonomy in expression and rational decision making in the west would be a better consensus between cultures. We should take the stance stating that all people must be free to express, but we should also support the statement “Even if you could, does not mean you should”.
Freedom is to be shared
Cheerful Loh :D
Comments