Name: Sanjana Kochery

Student ID: KOCSC1701

Module: NV0690
Tutor: Dr David Westlake

While freedom of speech is something which the law must strenuously uphold, it may be necessary to
curtail it in the interests of the community.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right common to most democracies. According to Article 10 of
the Human Rights Act 19981 everyone has the freedom to hold opinions and impart information without fear
of reprisal from public authorities. It also holds that freedom of speech comes with formalities and
restrictions as prescribed by the law in matters of national security.
In broad terms, freedom of speech is a value held with different meanings but this essay will establish that
freedom of speech is integral to the growth of a community and it should remain unrestrained in all contexts.

Renowned legal Scholar Stanley Fish claimed that freedom of speech is not an independent value but a
political prize2, that is, It is not a value upheld for long term benefits rather ,free speech is inherently
dependent upon personal and political interests . Fish argues that free speech is not an obligation that should
regulate our own selfish interests, rather it should liberate us into taking advantage of those who view it as
an independent value; an obligation.3 All acts concerning freedom of speech can thus be argued to be
intrinsically selfish. The incident of Charlie Hebdo and the Paris attacks can be used to challenge his views.

Charlie Hebdo a French weekly magazine published a number of controversial Muhammad cartoons that led
to two terrorist attacks and the death of twelve people in the January of 20154. After the incident there was
widespread debate about whether freedom of speech entailed the right to hold and express offensive
opinions and ideas. French public maintained that the attacks were a violation of the human rights of the
magazine editors, there were many supporters for the cause using the slogan “Je suis Charlie”5 which was
trending within several social media platforms, around 6 million people using it within the week. Even
though it gave other governments incentive to regulate media and freedom of speech in the interest of
national security, the French government was not concerned with using free speech as a ploy to mask
political movements as Fish would argue, rather they agreed with the public at large, in that, upholding the
right to free speech is a moral imperative.

Another example can be the Free Speech Movement of 19646, when students of the University of California
protested against the ban of political activities within the campus, claiming that it was a violation of their
freedom of speech right. The students were eventually permitted to carry out discussions within the college
after many protests and speeches. They viewed freedom of speech as an independent value, a fundamental
constituent of their liberty. The idea that their liberty was being violated incited the movement.

John Stuart mill, a famous English philosopher stated in his book ‘On liberty’, that the suppression of a
particular opinion on the grounds that it is false is to assume that the opinion held true is infallible. He holds

1
‘Human Rights Act 1998’ (legislation.gov.uk) < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/resources> accessed 21 February
2017.
2
Stanley Fish, There’s No Such Thing A Free Speech and it’s a Good Thing too (Oxford University Press 1994) 102 .
3 Ronald Dworkin et al, The Future of Academic Freedom (The University of Chicago Press 1996) 77-78.
4 ‘Charlie Hebdo attack: France’s worst terrorist attack in a generation leaves 12 dead’ (The Telegraph)
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11331902/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-Frances-worst-terrorist-attack-in-a-
generation-leaves-12-dead.html > accessed 22 February 2017.
5 How the World was Changed by the Slogan 'Je Suis Charlie' (BBC Trending) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-
35108339> accessed 22 February 2017.
6
‘Free Speech Movement timeline’ (Tiki-Toki) < http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/300038/Free-Speech-Movement-
timeline/#vars!date=1957-03-30_17:23:08!> accessed 22 February 2017.

1
that “the greatest evil of silencing an opinion is that it is robbing the posterity an opportunity for exchanging
error for truth, if the opinion held is true. If it is not, they are deprived of an opportunity to get a clearer
impression of the truth, created through its collision with error.” It is clear hat nothing can be said with
absolute certainty; no opinion is infallible.

For example, before the period of enlightenment science was looked at in contempt. The view held then was
that the earth was flat, this would have remained to be a social truth if not for freedom of speech. When the
theory of evolution was put forward it was extensively debated. Many people in power held converse views
about the beginning of existence. If those in power had disregarded and or silenced the opinions of all in
agreement with the Darwinian theory, our understanding of the world as such would have been completely
different. All ideas and opinions subject to change, silencing an opinion or discussion could therefore stunt
the growth of society as the value of an opinion may not be realized in its time of utterance. John Stuart mill
had said that
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would no more be justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”
An opinion cannot be said to be a personal possession subject to private interests, it is applicable to the
entire human race and its future generations.7

In conclusion, Freedom of speech is not to be considered only on the basis of morality. It is the crux of a
democratic society; it needs to be considered for its role in societal progression.
It has many advantages, it contributes to the marketplace of ideas, that is, individuals will be able to voice
their diverse opinions, permitting them to express their grievances and act as a “pressure release valve” to
reduce violent uprisings. It will also bring solutions to sociopolitical debates.8
Restricting an individual from voicing his or her opinion can be equated with taking away their liberty. In
the post modern society where individuals live as autonomous beings holding diverse views, freedom and
liberty are considered to be of paramount importance. None of the interests of the community can be met by
infringing the human rights of individuals within the community. The best interests of the community lie
within the subjective interests of its constituents. As James Madison the architect of the United states
constitution stated:
“The people not the government possess the absolute sovereignty, it therefore follows that the
censorial power is in the people over the government and not in the government over people.”9

7
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Batoche Books Limited 2001) 18-20.
8‘
Why Freedom of Speech Matters’ (Inside Sources) < http://www.insidesources.com/freedom-speech-matters/ > accessed 22
February 2017.
9 Ivan Hare and James Weinstein (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford University Press 2010) 1.