Freedom has often seemed far-fetched. It is often poised as an ideal one must long for, instead of being present from birth. Freedom from others, freedom from oneself, freedom to be oneself. The first two one must work towards, the third is present right now. But it’s under fire. The freedom to express oneself, in its truest form, has been debated upon for centuries. Is it the ability to express oneself without the fear of retaliation? Do all opinions deserve such treatment? Who decides which ideas and opinions deserve to be respected? Do statements and ideas that seem morally and ethically incorrect deserve to be heard? If not, does that mean freedom of speech is inherently subjective instead of objective? All questions valid. All required, all necessary. And that is what I attempt to discuss.

​

Before getting into the philosophy of freedom of speech, we must explore its history and some examples. Freedom of speech was originally a democratic ideal pioneered in ancient Greece. It stems from the Greek word “parrhesia”, which means “free speech” or “to speak candidly”. Its first use in Greek literature was in Euripides, a tragedian of Ancient Athens circa 484-407 BC, and it has appeared throughout the ancient Greek world of letters from the end of the fifth century BC. Therefore, during the classical period of ancient Greece, when democracy was at its peak, flourishing across Democratic Athens as many of the Eastern Aegean and Northern Regions became free of the Persian Empire, “parrhesia” became fundamental to the democracy of Athens. From top-notch politicians to the everyday Athenian farmer, politics and religion were open discussion. Some key modern examples of “parrhesia” would be the famous First Amendment from USA, and a lesser known example would be Estonia. At first, of course, we have the reputed “Land of the free”, the United States of America. The country has been built on the concept of freedom, free speech, and democracy. It was one of the 48 countries to sign the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which explicitly state that it is an individual’s right to freely express themselves and to use speech freely. Estonia however is largely new example, at least for me. Article 45 of the Estonian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and of expression of opinions, backed by its press freedom score from 2020 of 12.61. However, the press freedom is often susceptible to change due to tensions between Estonia and Russia.

​

Moving on, we now get to types of speech that aren’t protected, and why so. Taking the example of USA, the first amendment does not protect the following forms of speech-

​

• Obscene material (Child pornography, etc)

• ·Plagiarism of copyrighted material

• True threats

• Defamation (libel and slander)

​

Now out of all the forms of speech that are not protected, it makes perfect sense to punish the first three forms of speech. Obscene material such as the one specified deserves absolutely no place in the world and should be eradicated with due diligence and ferocity. Plagiarism of any kind, especially one that includes theft of intellectual property should not be protected either. True threats, which is a threatening communication that can be punished under the law, has no business in any arena. This is because in order to have civil discourse, both parties implicitly imply that their battle must be won primarily through well-thought arguments and intelligent counter arguments. A statement of threat or violent intent means that the intellectual battle has been forsaken, and for a democracy, when civil discourse is forsaken, there is ample space for anarchy. However, when analyzing the philosophy of freedom of speech, wouldn’t the freedom to slander be a given? You see my colleagues; it is not this simple. Freedom of speech, in its purist form would perhaps include the ability to slander and libel, but it would thereby create a free space for dispensing lies to the public through falsehoods of someone’s character or an organization’s actions. Hence the defamation laws have been put in place, with the right to protect one’s good name at the heart of the law. Former United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote that the essence of a defamation claim is the right to protect one’s good name. He explained in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty”. However, these defamation laws hold significant influence over the realm of political discourse. A reporter or any individual who fears that they can be sued for defamation for publishing (known as libel) or uttering a statement (slander) might end up not even letting those opinions out, even if the statement was not defamation of character.

​

Hence we arrive at the peak of my opinion column. Here, I intend to answer all these questions. Of course, I am a mere 17-year-old student, and I am not the end-all know-all. First of all, it would make logical sense to have freedom of speech for all individuals, without the accompanied fear of retaliation or at least some back and forth with one who disagrees, but then again, they’re allowed to do that, aren’t they? However, do all opinions, and ideas deserve retaliation, Mayank? An opinion such as “Animal cruelty is bad” would be a subjective statement, as the extent to what all counts as animal abuse would vary in scope from person to person, but this opinion should clearly not face any retaliation, no? Sure, the scope of what animal abuse should encompass could be disputed, and that discussion should be welcomed. But one argument that completely disagrees with this opinion should surely not exist, but that is the price of freedom of speech. Progressive ideas that have helped society grow such as the increased open-mindedness regarding lifestyle choices still met with contrasting views, but that is the cost of seeking an ideal. An ideal, however simple and logical in nature, is at the end an ideal. And when one strives for an ideal, they must accept the costs that accompany it. The highest peaks often have the toughest climbs, but it is a climb I am willing to make.

​

Written by: Mayank Gahlaut

Edited By: Ishani Patil

Designed by: Myra Jain

​