Freedom of Expression for the morons!!

Freedom of Expression in the recent times is the most controversial right and many of us are unaware of what it actually comprises. The recent Movie “INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS” has created a riot all around the world and was defended by many on the basis of freedom of expression. These acts of violence which occurred after the release of the movie, were particularly prominent in Pakistan as government property was sabotaged, disrupting peace and harmony throughout the country. The main bone of contention is that this right is not absolute and is subject to various limitations and restrictions throughout the world. In order to further elaborate on my point, it is imperative to look at different jurisdictions and the stance that they have taken on the award of this fundamental right.
Talking about the western countries for instance, Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries ( Austria, Poland, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg , Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Netherlands etc ). Its denial is criminalized resulting in fine and imprisonment. Even speaking how many people were killed in the incident is illegal since they are very sensitive about the incident and it hurts their sentiments. Many of these countries ban other elements related to Nazism such as Nazi symbols. Therefore, Freedom of expression is restricted in these countries. In the same way Muslim Community is sensitive about Islam and Prophet (P.B.U.H). Similarly, isn’t it justified to conclude that these countries should be stopped or criminalized for filming the prophet since it’s against their religious and moral grounds. It has the same effect of inflicting injuries on Muslim community as denial of holocaust has on the Europeans. So why is it that, Muslim community’s sentiments are not upheld in the same manner as that of the Western countries? Why is freedom of expression of others considered an absolute right to defame a religion like Islam?
Freedom of expression as we all know is a right granted to individual to communicate one’s opinion and ideas. It also protects “symbolic speech” i.e. nonverbal expression; its purpose is to communicate ideas. Therefore It should be noted that expression doesn’t comprise only speech, but also expressive conduct for instance flag burning .The Supreme Court of US in the case of (Texas v Johnson), held that non-speech applies to both freedom of expression and freedom of speech. The former is a basic right of humanity and therefore it is pleaded the most internationally.
Worldwide, the right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that
“[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.
In European Union, including the U.K freedom of expression is granted under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions under Article 10 (2) that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Even in Pakistan the right is granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan . However it provides citizens with restricted freedoms of speech, expression and of the press.
“ in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offense”.
In United states Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and by many state constitutions and federal laws. This freedom is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom of speech, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.
What is most surprising is,that all these laws clearly specify that this right is not absolute, it’s a qualified right. What it means is freedom of expression cannot be used as a basic human right when questions of national security ,territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary arise. Absolute rights are those which cannot be limited in any way. They cannot be reduced or amended. Absolute rights include, for instance, the right not to be tortured. On the other hand, qualified rights are when government interference with these rights is allowed in special circumstances, and only when necessary in a democratic society. The interference must fulfill a pressing social need; pursue a legitimate aim; and be proportionate to the aims being pursued. For example, freedom of expression is limited by hate crimes. However, it should be noted that this is the very right which is pleaded the most as if it’s an absolute right granted to an individual. It should also be noted all around the world freedom of expression entails with it many restrictions which are usually ignored and hate related crimes are committed taking it as a defense which is illogical and immoral.
Talking specificaly of the United States First Amendment. First Amendment rights; free speech issues did not even reach the Supreme Court until 1919. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called “fighting words”, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of “slight social value as a step to truth.” In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that defamatory falsehoods about public officials can be punished — only if the offended official can prove the falsehoods were published with “actual malice,” i.e.: “knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”Legally “obscene” material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection (Miller v. California). Therefore limitations are in many forms and categories include Speech that presents imminent lawless action, threats, child pornography, invasion of privacy, national security, defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The main reason of granting this right to individuals is that, it promotes and develops social values. However, this right can in no way, be used as a tool to degrade one’s religion or spread religious hatred for that matter. Freedom of religion should not only grant one’s discretion to practce their religion, but it should also command respect by other communities. No right should suppress religious values since it’s a highly sensitive and personal matter and it would be illogical if any other rights supercede it.
Dawn’s edition published on 5 October states “US President Obama refused to ban it or take any action against its makers citing the American law on freedom of expression. Obama said that as long as this law exists in America, he cannot take any action against the producers.”
What law? The First Amendment? Its restricted law not an absolute one. “Innocence of Muslim” or Cartoons in the name of freedom of expression cannot be allowed. It has no social value for development which is the very purpose of this right. It’s against morality freedom of religion and disrespects religion. It is considered “ fighting words”( Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) which has the tendency to “inflict injury and tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” i.e inciting act of violence and its also defamatory act under American Law. However talking specifically in terms of the movie it’s not only inciting act of voilence towards an individual but 1/6th of world’s population and this isn’t protected under First Amendment. Therefore, Obama’s statement is not in line with law in fact the very opposite of American settled law since 1942. It is immoral under Article 10 (2) of European Convention of Human Rights .Therefore, illegal under American and European jurisdictions and amounts to an offence under THEIR law. Further, it should also be criminalized to picturize Prophet just as Holocaust denial and elements related to Nazi regime are restricted under freedom of expression.