freedom of expression

[rahim066]

What is the meaning of freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression is one of the basic human rights that allows an individual to express his ideas and beliefs freely without infringing on the rights of others or spreading false propaganda and hatred.
This right is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 in France.
BUT
We all know that freedom of expression is very limited in third world countries, and when any statement is hostile to rulers, you put your freedom and life at risk, unlike developed countries, but we have noticed recently the lack of respect for freedom of expression by these countries
Example:
- player suspended and menaced by thier team after showing support to palestine
And the suppression of peaceful Manifestation that support Palestine
- Attacks and threats to people who do not support homosexuality.
Is this considered a suppression of freedom of expression?
Is democracy a dress for dictatorship only?

[1714626853]

1714626853

[1714626853]

1714626853

[1714626853]

1714626853

[1714626853]

1714626853

[1714626853]

1714626853

[1714626853]

1714626853

[Wiwo]

Where there is freedom there will be oppression also,  just like wherever thereares weapons, there will be wars,  so what then will savage us from this ugly incident is our knowledge and ability to enforce our right even in the face of oppression and being able to fight and defend what we believe and know that is right against wrong.

So for that many governments will only seek ways to restrict citizens' right and also make sure there be a place where we can all co-exist in without any interference from one another,  this has been the most pronounced aspect of the whole thing,  how we can freely express our fundamental right such as freedom of speech as you mentioned.

[Obim34]

With the way the world is revolving things are beginig to change either to please or displease us. Most times we are forced and deprived of this our freedom of expression as a result of specific rules implemented by the government and this same set of government we choose them ourselves. All we have to do is to keep mute at some certain levels and stick to the rules given in oder to avoid the penalties of breaking any.
Sometimes we have to compromise our beliefs the way we display them outwardly and preserves the inner self expression to ourselves just to avoid certain punishments

[Hispo]

In my opinion is that freedom of speech and the way it is handled is not actually the problem, but the ramifications there could be and the interections private companies and organizations have with freedom of speech.
Nowadays, the logic goes as follows: one is allowed to say whatever you want, but your boss has also the right to fire you because of it, and social media websites have also rights to close down your voice in their platforms.
All of those instances, we talk about private entities.

In the case of students who support Palestine, a government controled college could do nothing to suppress their freedom of speech, but they will likely be blacklisted by private employers.

[Hewlet]

 
We all know that freedom of expression is very limited in third world countries, and when any statement is hostile to rulers, you put your freedom and life at risk, unlike developed countries, but we have noticed recently the lack of respect for freedom of expression by these countries

When it comes to the issue of limitations on freedom of expression, I don't see it as a bad thing. The reason is that if you don't curb the way some citizens make unguided speech and statements about certain things, they will end up causing crises for the country. You can't because you've been given the right to express yourself and you will make a statement that tends to cause war or chaos in the land, that's very bad.

Of course, you can't close your mouth when you see your leaders making wrong and selfish decisions that you know will affect you in the long run but you need to make your statement with caution and courtesy so your good intention won't be evil spoken of.

[Die_empty]

We all know that freedom of expression is very limited in third world countries, and when any statement is hostile to rulers, you put your freedom and life at risk, unlike developed countries, but we have noticed recently the lack of respect for freedom of expression by these countries

Sometimes when I see protesters in some developed nations, I just count them lucky. In Africa, you can't criticize or protest against a government policy. You will either be beaten, sent to prison without trial or even killed. The courts are powerless because they are under the control of the government in power. In Africa, you just keep suffering and smiling because there is nothing like freedom of expression.

- Attacks and threats to people who do not support homosexuality.

I just read news where Joe Biden the president of the US announced that Uganda will be removed from a special US-Africa trade programme. The reason is because of the country's anti-homosexual laws. Removing this country from this program will have an adverse economic impact on this African nation because it will limit its exports to the US.  The people of Uganda believe that this law is consistent with their values and norms but they are forced to accept a law that is alien to their customs and traditions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67236251

[BADecker]

If freedom of expression includes in it a threat, depending on the kind of threat, the whole thing might need to be investigated. But if it is for artistic purposes, or to simply lay out an opinion, or when life is simply being lived, there should be freedom.


The Freedom to Hate


https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2023/10/30/the-freedom-to-hate/
"Nikki" Haley, for instance. In air fingers quotation marks to make a point of the fact her real name isn't that. Nimarata Haley recently lectured Americans that while "there should be freedom of speech," people have not got the "freedom to hate."

Well, first of all, who gets to define what constitutes "hate"?

Why, the Left, of course!

It was the Left that first framed disagreeing with the Left as "hate" – in order both to smear such disagreement as morally repugnant and – next – to seek to outlaw any expression of disagreement with the Left.

So what is Nimarata trying to "conserve," exactly? It's certainly not the freedom to express disagreement with the Left.

Or the Right.
[VIDEO]
...

[passwordnow]

Every country has their own ways of delivering and describing of what freedom of expression is. But if it has come to an extent that your opinion and expression is also becoming noticeable, much better to keep quiet. I know that this is the right of everyone and if your country has a side to go along with what is happening globally especially on the wars then it is better not to take any side or you just keep your opinions for now. Or if you're going to express what you feel, then you have to make sure that you're not figured out if the government you have is too strict about these matters.

While I believe that it is a suppression to your freedom of expression, but know that there's always a limit and the more you talk, the more mistake you might say. Censorship happens and that's why even if you fight for your freedom to express, you might be silenced or just be in silence.

[Natsuu]

Wel those you mentioned seem like there's a suppression of freedom of expression. Supporting Palestine or expressing one's views on homosexuality should ideally be protected in democratic societies. Democracy promotes individual freedoms and the right to express opinions without fear but the real world isn't always that simple. Balancing free speech with maintaining order can be a tricky challenge. Some argue that in certain cases, democracy might be used as a cover for more autocratic practices. It's a topic of ongoing debate, and people's experiences with democracy can vary widely. What's important is to keep the conversation going, raising awareness about these issues and advocating for the protection of everyone's right to express themselves within the bounds of respect and understanding.

[Ucy]

Freedom has to operate within the boundaries of the law. If freedom will violate the law then it should not be practiced.
The law has to be Just/good so that freedom doesn't create problems for the society it's practiced in, and so that freedom to do right is not limited.


Freedom of speech/expression has to be according to Just Law otherwise you create anarchy-like situation where everyone says or does whatever he/she wants, whether good or bad. Freedom to do evil is not allowed else there won't be punishment for doing evil.
I think Human Rights are things that are right for humans. It makes no sense to say doing evil or wrong is part of Human Rights whereas what is done is not Right.

[Hispo]

Freedom has to operate within the boundaries of the law. If freedom will violate the law then it should not be practiced.
The law has to be Just/good so that freedom doesn't create problems for the society it's practiced in and so that freedom to do right is not limited.


Freedom of speech/expression has to be according to Just Law otherwise you create anarchy-like situations where everyone says or do whatever they want whether good or bad. Freedom to do evil is not allowed otherwise there won't be punishment for doing evil.
I think Human Rights are for things that are right for humans. It makes no sense to say doing evil or wrong is part of Human Rights whereas what is done is not Right.

The thing with law is (in the case of country which actually care for freedom of expression and basic human liberties) that there are very limited scenarios where freedom of speech can be prosecuted and that is a good thing, being the only exception the case of defamation.
But you also need to keep in mind it is possible to incite violence or push for anarchy just by using one's freedom to say what we want to however we want. While there are citizens who use their right to spread hope and love for each other, some will take a loudspeaker and say we should abolish state, abolish police or even overthrow a sitting president, it is legal to say those things and yet they can put in danger the same democracy and liberty which allows them to be vocal about their feelings and ideology.
It is very ironic, isn't it ?

[Pingrapole]

Such measures are taken to suppress any race, religion, caste or a particular state, and this is also the case with Palestine.When the white and black movement was going on in South Africa, the blacks were suppressed in all respects. Also in the history of America, when slavery was in place, there were some people who were against this course and its There were some people who were against and the people who were on the side tried to keep them down Even today, athletes or entertainers who speak out for Palestine are denied many privileges, including bans, not only here, but also in various leagues They have been excluded from Now the matter is that no one adheres to what was actually given in the UN Convention as an expression of opinion Democracy doesn't work when you speak against others and your freedom of expression is taken away and democracy works when you speak for it.Freedom of speech is said to be accepted in the constitutions of all countries but no one actually means that every time you speak for Palestine, you will be tried to assert your opinion in various ways And various actions may be taken against your Power in today's world, countries talk about democracy and freedom of speech, but they take away the freedom of speech of others for their own benefit They try to put pressure on the political economy and technology and they succeed in many ways because they keep all the states pretty much under control with different systems.That's why everyone should unite to express their opinion and consider right and wrong and give priority to justice rather than their own interests. Then freedom of speech can be fully recognized and recognized as a human being If you are able to express your opinion, there will be no restrictions or oppression.

[Dunamisx]

Is this considered a suppression of freedom of expression?
Is democracy a dress for dictatorship only?

If there's no freedom of expression then people wouldn't have been engaging in all manner of attacks over the government leadership and their way of ruling policies, there's freedom of speech, only when we know how to fight it, this takes courage in us, some aren't outspoken, some cannot argitate, we have freedom of speech but some are not aware of their right because they have already felt being intimidated by those in political power, so they cannot confront them.

[BADecker]

Freedom of expression only goes as far as it doesn't hurt anyone or damage his property. For example, if all the people living in a certain area believe that wearing clothing is disgusting and harmful to the mind and body, those few who want to wear clothing better do it indoors, or else move out of the area.

Let's say there is freedom of speech. If the speaker has a voice that can shout so loudly that his speech breaks the eardrums of people, he better not speak. Freedom of speech doesn't cover that.

No Democracies are ruled by the people in general. All Democracies have a small group of people as their rulers. That's why the Democracy is almost the same as group-Dictatorship.

The US is not a Democracy. The 'company/trust' known as the Untied States Government is a Dictatorship. America is a Republic where all the people have the right to do anything they want, as long as what they do doesn't harm or threaten anyone else or his property. The Republic is over the Democracy, but the people have mostly forgotten this mindset, and forgotten how to implement the Republic over the Democracy.

[Wiwo]

Is this considered a suppression of freedom of expression?
Is democracy a dress for dictatorship only?

If there's no freedom of expression then people wouldn't have been engaging in all manner of attacks over the government leadership and their way of ruling policies, there's freedom of speech, only when we know how to fight it, this takes courage in us, some aren't outspoken, some cannot argitate, we have freedom of speech but some are not aware of their right because they have already felt being intimidated by those in political power, so they cannot confront them.

There is some extent of freedom in the political systems most especially in the donemcratic states,  where there is laws and institutions that enforce those laws,  although there have been some level of oppression also from the politically influenced to the ordinary citizens,  this has been the evidence of some degraded system of government,  and also making efforts to force they will on the citizens where there corruption and illegitimacy in the governance.

At some point, the citizens may have to give up the will to believe in the government and their right to freedom of speech and stipulated in the constitutions but not practical in some cases.

[Dunamisx]

Is this considered a suppression of freedom of expression?
Is democracy a dress for dictatorship only?

If there's no freedom of expression then people wouldn't have been engaging in all manner of attacks over the government leadership and their way of ruling policies, there's freedom of speech, only when we know how to fight it, this takes courage in us, some aren't outspoken, some cannot argitate, we have freedom of speech but some are not aware of their right because they have already felt being intimidated by those in political power, so they cannot confront them.

There is some extent of freedom in the political systems most especially in the donemcratic states,  where there is laws and institutions that enforce those laws,  although there have been some level of oppression also from the politically influenced to the ordinary citizens,  this has been the evidence of some degraded system of government,  and also making efforts to force they will on the citizens where there corruption and illegitimacy in the governance.

At some point, the citizens may have to give up the will to believe in the government and their right to freedom of speech and stipulated in the constitutions but not practical in some cases.

There's law and there's human right, if we don't know what the law says then it may be abused or used against us, some people are not knowing what their rights are, how will they be able to fight for it, but the governments will always uses that same law to find us each time we are guilty, they are always found hiding under the same law because they know what it says, how to dodge some aspects they are guilty of and project the ones they know is part of their right to claim, henceforth we should also speak out our rights and fight for them when necessary.

[Wiwo]

There's law and there's human right, if we don't know what the law says then it may be abused or used against us, some people are not know what their rights are, how will they be able to fight for them, but the governments will always uses that same law to find us each time we are guilty, they are always found hiding under the same law because they know what it says, how to dodge some aspects they are guilty of and project the ones they know is part of their right to claim, henceforth we should also speak out our rights and fight for them when necessary.

Knowledge is power indeed,  and that also goes further to tell us how the importance of education is on individuals because with the knowledge of your rights as a person,  anybody can easily abuse you even when you are on your right because you don't know,  so ignorance is indeed a big hindrance to our freedom,  speaking and fighting for our right is very necessary and just as I ooh ted out in the earlier comments,  one doesn't necessarily need to know everything concerning the entire laws but as a citizen,  it is important to at least know your fundamental rights.

Just like a trend that is happening in my country,  where policemen just demand to search a suspect phone, meanwhile, the law gives citizens the right to privacy over mobile phones and unless with a warrant duly signed by a court to search the phone only then you can allow police to have access to your phone.

But if you don't have this information in the first place,  how then do you intend to enforce it at some point if the need arise?

[John93r8t]

I don't think "freedom of expression" carries much weight anymore. Arguably never did, at least starting in the early 20th century onward. Consider the Espionage Act that could've locked people up for holding an political opinion deemed "too extreme." Or an extension of that scope when McCarthy had his communist witch hunt up until the mid-50s or so. Then after 9/11 the Patriot Act that green-lighted warrantless surveillance of individuals under the guise of terrorism. Some of these you could argue even started out with good intention on reeling in otherwise bad actors, nevertheless innocent people did (and do) get caught up in these surveillance programs for expressing opinions that may be considered extreme by a global entity like the NSA. Unfortunately for us, it's what they decide is too extreme.

I do think we've entered a whole new era that's become monumentally more concerning though. With the rise of Big Tech, people end up profiling themselves a lot more than they realize, simply by using certain services without reading the fine print in ToS's. For example, monitor your scripts across every webpage you visit. 90% of them will have Google 3rd party scripts collecting data. Even when the webpage itself seemingly has no connection to Google. Facebook is a TOTAL wash, people profile themselves on that for fuck sake. Instagram, SnapChat, Tinder, etc. all the same.

This in and of itself is concerning, but when you factor in the era of "culture wars" and "wokeness" that contemporary companies not only acknowledge, but many endorse, then Big Tech can monitor pretty much everything you do and cut you off if they don't think you express the right views. And considering by law these companies are considered private entities, your not protected under the first amendment. At least not as well. Because they can argue in courts of law that their platforms are owned by them, and they can choose to deny service to anyone for whatever reason they like. Hold the wrong view about Israel/Palestine? Gone. Hold the wrong view about Joe Biden? Gone. Hold the wrong view about Donald Trump? Gone. Are you skeptical about COVID vaccines? Bad news for you, you're gone.

And it shouldn't even be about what's correct or not. Technical application of "freedom of expression" would allow for people hold, endorse, and even spread incorrect views. Provided said views don't incite violence towards another individual or institution. However people aren't allowed to have incorrect expressions anymore. Or, rather speaking, their not allowed to have what other private conglomerates believe is incorrect expressions anymore.

[Frankolala]

There is freedom of speech but I will say that in My country, it is limited. Only the rich are allowed to talk whatever that they like and do but the poor ones are not allowed to say whatever they like because the rich are oppressing the poor in my country. This is the same with poor and rich countries doing business. The moment the poor country says something against the practice of the rich country or disagree with them, they will cut tie with them, and this is because the rich country believes that they are the ones helping the poor country to survive.

 From what I understand in this world the rich are always oppressing the poor and have deprived the poor from their freedom to say what they feel is bad to them, but when you are rich, you can say whatever you like and it doesn't seem to be taken serious.

[franky1]

lot of people just read parts of it.. they ignore the responsibility part aka "freely without infringing on the rights of others or spreading false propaganda and hatred."

meaning speak your mind but if your words harm/command/offend others, expect them to fight/argue back or perform some legal action against you.

inshort. you can claim your pronouns are "helicopter, chopper, swirly whirly bird" but you cant force me to call you it
being male but saying your a female does not give you the right to perve on women in public toilets/showers

everyone has the natural ability to wiggle their jaw and tongue to make sounds. but there are consequences to someones actions too

no one can say you cannot pretend that you are a tree(if that is your kink). but if one of your branches(limbs) hurts someone. or you show your nuts/low hanging fruits..  expect repercussions
and yes expect people to express their belief that your insane

my personal opinion
the over extended media promotion of rights while not highlighting the responsibility is just a game media play to cause infighting and separation between a population.

be free to speak and express yourself. but just think, are you really expressing your real self. or just copying some social trend you seen. which if you spent a minute thinking for yourself, realise these skits, reels, trends and political slogans are insane and made dramatic in the first place

...
its much like gun law. "free to bear arms" yet people are free to defend themselves against someone bearing arms.
so whilst you think your free to wave a gun around, someone else is free to shoot/arrest you for threatening them with a weapon