The events transpiring in France as of late, have prompted examination of the concept of freedom of expression/speech. But, what constitutes or differentiates expression premised on a bias or extreme hatred versus critical expression when based on factual evidence in support of such expression.
For an instance if I were to claim:
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, a duplicitous, Fascist, genocidal, racist criminal administering an apartheid state for the occupation and slaughter of innocent Palestinian citizens;
…would this be interpreted as `hate speech’ or my freedom to express my opinion based on interpretation of the factual evidence deemed in support of this claim?
Frankly, I think not. It would likely be labelled as `anti-Semitic’, an accusation directed not at the Politician named but, toward the Peoples of Israel; especially they whom either support or fail to intervene in the criminal actions of their government.
Hypocrisy in the domain of freedom of speech is rampant. Majority of western, so-called democratic countries advocate the right of expression, a pillar among those that define such nations however; anyone with the ability to see, hear and discern what is evident in daily News reporting; knows this is just not true.
The only freedom for assembled citizens to express a viewpoint on topical matters are ONLY those supportive of the current government’s policy. When defiance of it; the militarized, policing authority is there to quash such expression. To cite specific examples of this check the video News archived coverage of any major G-Country meetings; or environmental policy legislation such the X-L Pipeline and climate-change.
The attack on investigative journalistic reporting that runs contrary to a ruling governments’ policies is becoming increasingly substantiated as a matter of national security and potentially harmful to the nation in question. In truth, this means: if the citizens really knew what we [government] were up to there would be a considerable revolt if not outright anarchy!
It is no secret except to those whom chose to bury their heads in the proverbial `sand’; the complicit nature of western societal institutions to present only `their’ perspective to global events. Main-stream media, financial and multi-national corporations being at the top of the list, share equally with respective national governments, to promulgate and support what is increasingly becoming a `conspiracy of dominance’ by national governmental administrations, regardless of political strip. The need to control effective communication of narratives touted as `credible’ information, to a less-than-sublime and gullible general populace.
Any commentary contrary to a nation’s national narrative is quickly labelled a `conspiracy’ of some extremist individual or group, anti-government organization or, manifests as charge(s) of jeopardizing national security and pursuance of reporting journalist(s) by department of justice. Relevant and significant examples of this are Julian Assange of Wiki-Leaks, infamous Edward Snowden both deemed `Wanted-Men’ by the United States Department of Justice and, the recent imprisonment of Chelsea Manning for the better part of his life. The irony in each of these cases: majority of the western populace are in support of the actions taken by such individuals for exposing illegal mass surveillance activity by national security agencies of the United States and their coalition of governmental allies around the world.
Investigative Journalist covering and exposing controversial political matters, intrusive to national security of government administrations around the globe are either: mysteriously killed, imprisoned or, actively pursued by federal prosecutors on national security charges.
Fortunately, with the ubiquitous Internet and predacious nature of freelance journalism, a platform for journalistic activism is flourishing much to the chagrin of nation governments and their respective politicians. Independent, alternative News-media channels are reporting unbiased, factual accounts of many nefarious governmental activities. Exposing the hypocrisy that is rife throughout the spectrum of global governance and socio-economic policy makers.
Unfortunately, recognizing the potential influence such independent news-platforms can impose to counter the national narrative as presented by the main-stream media; strengthened by the increased terrorist-security threat agenda touted as an international concern, a communication policy titled Net-Neutrality is gaining increased support. Basically what this implies is the opportunity for some internet service providers (ISP’s) to fundamentally alter the way the internet works and collect money from companies (like Netflix and Facebook) to guarantee their data can continue to reach users unimpeded. Essentially creating a situation where those who are able to pay will receive preferential, faster service and bandwidth. The unfortunate and possible calculated aspect of this policy is recognition that many of the independent news-media websites are donation supported and, as result, be relegated to poorer and slower service from their ISP if not outright closure. The move could be cynically translated as an arms-length way for governments to further control the information-narrative that flows to its citizenry via the Internet.
The facets that would respond to the original question posed and, the title to this essay:
`What is: Freedom of Speech in the 21st Century’
…in fairness to its critical importance to everyone would, should take several more pages than expressed here. However, advocated by the brief examples cited is the necessity for every individual to become more informed and involved with the circumstances that increasingly shape the world we and our descendants occupy. It is essential to go beyond the sound-bites of information offered by the Main-stream media and equally important, to not accept at face-value all that is presented, to question the validity and veracity of its source(s). This is especially relevant given that a majority of News reported originates from one of only five major news corporations which are more concerned with turning a profit than ensuring you as a voting citizen, know the truth to what is going on beyond your horizon.
In conclusion, the perfunctory or dismissive reaction to this essay-commentary by its potential reader, is not the failing of its communication but, the success of governmental-establishment’s objectives to impede and minimize opportunity for true and honest freedom of speech and for the potential demonization and incarceration of those whom advocate for it!
Naykd Poet, 2015
Watch the following Video by Democracy Now.com:
Too, check out The Real News Network
naykdpoet 