Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press and offense are closely correlated terms It is surely the most extensive debate that has been analyzed again and again throughout the history of humanity, from Ancient Greece to our modern times, where the dilemma is still on the table.
Often a social group, a person or a legal entity denounces or is denounced for having expressed an opinion regarding an issue that concerns the affected parties. In this sense, the offense is the result of the limit of freedom of expression and, consequently, it is very difficult to measure this lack objectively.
As we have pointed out in the introduction of the article, freedom of expression is a controversial topic to analyze, and so is its very definition. However, we will provide an interpretation that is as academic as possible.
Freedom of expression represents a civil or human right that all people, regardless of their religious, ethnic or physical condition, They have the legitimate power to write, say and narrate whatever an opinion or thought may be In this way, people are protected by law to avoid pressure, instigation and/or prior censorship.
The origins of the debate
This concept has its origins in the mid-20th century, after the end of the Second World War, and was introduced in the Universal Charter of Human Rights of 1948, drafted by the United Nations (1945) and included in all the constitutions of current Democratic States.
Freedom of expression is also enshrined in freedom of the press which is the great loser as it is the universal medium where citizens are informed and called to inform.
However, freedom of expression is a claim as old as human beings were organized in societies where the priorities and concerns of these groups were debated in a collective forum.
Limits and controversy with freedom of expression
Freedom of expression ends when the recipient is disturbed or harmed, according to communication experts. But, How to determine the offense or grievance of those affected? This is where the paradox of the term freedom lies
On the other hand, the limits to freedom of expression are established by those who have the powers of the channels of dissemination, influence or prestige such as multinational companies, governments and newspapers. According to a study revealed by ProPublica, censorship is usually on the side of economic elites and legitimate governments.
In this sense, we can say that freedom of expression is more of a tool than an ultimate right, since depending on one interest or another, one guideline or another will be applied, as happens on portals such as Facebook or Twitter.
We live in a super globally communicated world, where information is practically instantaneous, broadcasts are carried out live in voice and image. But still, There are still cases of censorship or a filter is passed before revealing the news
In Spain, to give an example, political representatives have had to rectify, apologize or even resign, for having verbalized a thought that has offended the recipient, or those around them. In many cases, the law has even been applied retroactively.
Let us remember Guillermo Zapata, councilor in the Madrid City Council, was tried and sentenced for having made jokes with the victims of the Holocaust or with the physical disability of Irene Villa, all of them prior to her time as a political figure. He had to rectify and was denied, due to public pressure, the position of Minister of Culture in the Madrid City Council.
Consequently, to determine the limits to freedom of expression, a measure has been proposed that analyzes the intention and weight that the message may have. Consequently, a message, thought or narrative that incites hatred or violence is considered a reason to curtail that freedom that we have been given.
In order to understand it better, we will illustrate this idea with a specific case. It is not the same to say “we must kill and eliminate all radical Muslims ruthlessly” as “we must eliminate all Muslims.” The term ‘radicals’ is what makes the difference in this example, since it attacks a specific group and not an entire community.
