Image via Wikipedia
Freedom of expression is a much touted, almost sacred right especially in Western nations which invoke liberalism in their heritage. So what is freedom of expression? Wikipedia defines it as the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. This basic idea in turn encompasses atleast three other aspects. These are:
- freedom to seek information and ideas.
- freedom to receive information and ideas.
- freedom to disseminate information and ideas
This is a powerful concept and one that is necessary for development and advancement of knowledge. All leading societies have encompassed this freedom; indeed such societies only lost their edge when these freedoms were removed.
However, this freedom is not unrestricted. There are important caveats. There are important limitations on freedom of speech which are placed there for the good of society. These limitations follow the harm principle and the offence principle. So for example, my right to view hate speech is proscribed on the grounds of offence principle. This is most clearly articulated in cases of anti-semitism. People routinely censor themselves in situations where they feel that what they are writing or depicting is verging on anti-semitism. An illustration of the harm principle would be that my right to yell "bomb" in a crowded cinema/theatre/market place what have you is proscribed on the grounds that such an action will cause panic and lead to people getting hurt or worse. These limitations are important for the proper functioning of society. As individuals living in a particular cultural milieu, we willingly accept these restrictions on the understanding that doing so will result in a greater good and the benefits accrued to society and by extension to me as an individual will overshadow the harm done to me by this restriction on my freedom.
Generally speaking, each society defines the acceptable limits on freedom of speech. The problem occurs when actions deemed acceptable in one society impinge on the limitations imposed by another. In an internet age, where information is increasingly not only digital but is rapidly spread throughout the world via the Internet, this is an increasingly common problem.
The one area where such cultural conflicts arouse the greatest passion is religion. For almost 10 years now, there has been a palpable tension between muslim and non-muslim societies and within muslim societies over actions of a resolute minority. A fallout of these tensions has been that Islam and the concerns of Muslims have suddenly impinged on the general consciousness of Westerners. While this has had benefits, there has also been an increase in the number of non-Muslims in Western societies who feel that Muslims are being pandered to a far greater extent than is warranted. Some of these people have then proceeded to attack Islam and specially the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). When this in turn generated a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslim societies, these elements then took the argument that not being allowed to speak against an important religious figure was a restriction on freedom of speech.
The recent fracas over an insensitive group formed on Facebook is a continuation of this dialectic. Speaking out against or making fun of the Prophet (PBUH) is known to elicit a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslims which is then presented as evidence of Muslim intractability. Such people then don a garb of freedom of speech around themselves and present an argument that not being allowed to do so is the thin edge of the wedge towards censorship. However, as has been mentioned above, freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. There are important restrictions that limit this right. These restrictions serve as boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. The question is that when a global platform is used to express an opinion, then to what extent if any should there be limitations on freedom of speech? Like any other peoples, there are differences of opinion as to what is acceptable and what is not. It has to be recognized that what is acceptable in one Muslim country may be unacceptable in another. But it should also be equally recognized that there are some issues that unite all Muslims no matter what their persuasion is. Mocking the Prophet (PBUH) is one such issue as has been made abundantly clear to the world community by now. On such issues, the harm principle and the offence principle that serve as limits to freedom of speech should be applicable on global platforms.
In this regard, the decision by Pakistan to block Facebook is completely justified. the alternate of blocking only the offending pages would not have sent as strong a message as blocking the entire website did. (It is to be noted however, that this blockage needs to be temporary. If it becomes permanent, then that would become unwarranted censorship). With this blockage, Muslims are saying in essence that speaking against or mocking the Prophet (PBUH) hurts the sensibilities of a billion Muslims. Please don't do this to our religion. Muslims understand the importance of freedom of speech. They strive to attain and protect it in their own countries. But actions such as draw Muhammad (PBUH) day serve no purpose. Indeed they actively harm the cause of freedom of speech.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d8b758c1-aee5-4a6e-8048-9fd96144802e)
