Social Media in the UK Promoting Freedom of Expression

Promoting Freedom of Expression within the Social Media in the U.K.

Introduction

Like the many other freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of expression is deemed to be a fundamental and inalienable human right. Towards this end, it is understood, within the said framework, to constitute the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, 2010, p. 107). For this reason, freedom of expression ought to be granted and guaranteed protection by any jurisdiction that prides itself as a beacon of modern democracy. The United Kingdom is one such country, alongside other countries such as the United States and Canada. It is important to note that over time, social media has become a marketplace of sorts for the exchange, advancement, as well as promotion of ideas concerning a wide array of issues. This is more so the case given its widespread adoption - with no specific regard for social, economic, or even age distinctions. For this reason, freedom of expression within the social media in the UK ought to be aggressively advanced, promoted, and fostered. This text clearly demonstrates that the relevance of promoting freedom of expression within social media cannot be overstated in a modern and democratic society like the UK.

Discussion

1. Promotes Democracy and Better Governance

Allowing and further enhancing freedom of expression within the social media in the U.K. would ensure that the government conducts its affairs in a just, fair, transparent, and equitable manner. In the words of Fraleigh and Tuman (2010), “democracy requires that people be informed on all sides of an issue, without the government screening of ideas that it deems unwise or dangerous” (8). Towards, this end, in a functional democracy, people should be permitted access to information so that they can make meaningful decisions on issues that affect them. Such issues include, but they are not limited to, electoral and social decisions. As a matter of fact, the European Court of Human Rights has, according to Equality and Human Rights Commission (2015) referenced “freedom of expression as one of the ‘essential foundations of a democratic society’ because it guarantees the right of every person to exchange information, debate ideas and express opinions” (6). Therefore, thanks to this key freedom, persons can point out the ills in governance, be sensitized on how to protect and safeguard their rights, and petition the government to address various issues of national importance. Indeed, as Brady (2012) observes, freedom of expression does indeed come in handy in bringing corruption issues in government to the attention of the public. In that regard, therefore, the relevance of freedom of expression cannot be overstated in seeking to promote better governance while at the same time further enhancing democracy. Social media remains an important medium through which persons could cultivate and advance these ideals.

2. Contributes to the Society’s Intellectual Growth and Knowledge Advancement

The further enhancement of freedom of expression within the social media in the U.K. would ensure that the society benefits immensely on the knowledge advancement an intellectual growth fronts. In the words of Schauer (2017), “the basic concept of freedom of speech”, from a broader perspective, is to enable “a society to increase its level of knowledge, to facilitate its identification of truth, and to expose error” (231). Therefore, where freedom of expression is promoted, people are permitted to freely express their ideas and thoughts, and thus share diverse opinions and viewpoints regarding a myriad of issues (Barendt, 2005). As a matter of fact, when there is free flow and exchange of information, the society as a whole benefits immensely and is better informed on the best course of action to take on various issues. A good example of this would be where people engage in discourse regarding LGBT rights and related issues, religious freedoms, proliferation of nuclear weapons, climate change, mass incarceration, and other contemporary and contentious issues. As McWhorter (2013) points out, a more enlightened society is a society at peace with itself and with its neighbors. Diverse viewpoints from various quarters, proclaimed as a consequence of freedom of expression, would present the masses with a unique opportunity of sorting through general information and fact with an aim of finding meaningful ideas and concepts. It is, therefore, important to note that when freedom of expression is not curtailed, social media could come in handy as a marketplace of ideas, from where people can freely engage and exchange viewpoints. This would have the effect of promoting societal knowledge and enlightenment.

3. Promotes and Advances other Human Rights

Embracing freedom of expression within the social media in the U.K. not only promotes, but also advances other basic human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In essence, freedom of expression is seen as the basis on which other rights are founded largely because when individuals are not free to express that which is in their hearts and minds freely, then such people cannot practice and enjoy numerous other basic rights purportedly advanced to them to promote their own self-advancement. While UNESCO (2018) brands freedom of expression as “a fundamental human right underpinning all civil liberties”, the Icelandic Human Rights Center (2018) rightfully points out that “freedom of expression is a right without which other rights are difficult to acquire and defend.” As a matter of fact, examples of other basic human rights that would be hard to advance or defend in the absence of freedom of expression include, but they are not limited to, the right to education, the right to public assembly, the right to your own things, and freedom of thought. For instance, the right to education would be curtailed as education is the imparting and expression of various dimensions of knowledge and knowhow, which may not necessarily be embraced by the authorities. It is for this reason that it has been pointed out in various quarters that “the right to freedom of expression and opinion is an important indicator of protection of other human rights” (United Nations, 2010). Social media remains an appropriate avenue for people to engage and voice their opinions, and in the course of doing so, defend other rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Counterargument: Freedom of Expression could be used to Incite Hatred

It should, however, be noted that some like Thomson (2012) have argued that limitations on freedom of expression can be placed in reference “to the harm which may be caused by the incitement of hatred.” As per this argument, freedom of expression could be abused and used to advance a certain agenda that goes contrary to public good. Example of instances where this has purportedly happened in the past includes the utilization of the social media by terror organizations and outfits for radicalization purposes (Conway, 2016). It is for this reason that jurisdictions like Britain have formulated laws which limit people’s ability to freely express themselves in the name of fighting crime and advancing the national security agenda (Dimbleby, 2015). However, as several authors have pointed out in the past, hate speech ought not to be used interchangeably with freedom of expression (Klang and Murray, 2005, p. 44). In that regard, therefore, freedom of speech and hate speech should be distinguished and sanctions adopted for the latter, not the former. Hate speech, according to the Council of Europe (2018), has no assigned definition. However, it could be seen as a “broad discourse that is extremely negative and constitutes a threat to social peace” (Council of Europe, 2018). Towards this end, hate speech is inclusive of advancement of religious hate, promotion of political intolerance, and facilitation of propaganda against a social or ideological formation. For this reason, it is hate speech that the authorities ought to protect against, and not freedom of speech. Towards this end, many “British courts have not entertained a claim that the UK’s hate speech laws violate the principle of freedom of expression” (Klang and Murray, 2005, p. 44).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it is clear that the relevance of promoting freedom of expression within the social media cannot be overstated especially when it comes to the promotion of democracy and better governance, enhancement of the intellectual growth and knowledge advancement of a society, and the further enhancement and protection of other human rights. For its relevance in a modern and just society, freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It should, however, be noted that this particular freedom is not absolute. This is to say that as persons seek to exercise their right to freedom of expression, they must not encroach on the rights and freedoms of other people. Instead, freedom of expression should be enjoyed subject to specific responsibilities. Even then, the authorities ought to desist from unreasonable and unfounded restrictions on the freedom of people to freely express their opinions and thoughts on social media. Where restrictions are necessary, they ought to be implemented only in an attempt to protect the rights of others and ensure they are not trampled upon, and for the promotion of public morals or order.

References

Brady, A.D. (2012). Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act: An Institutionally Sensitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Barendt, E. (2005). Freedom of Speech (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conway, M. (2016). Determining the Role of the Internet in Violent Extremism and Terrorism: Six Suggestions for Progressing Research. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1(4), 77-98.

Council of Europe (2018). Hate Speech. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech

Dimbleby, J. (2015). For Freedom of Speech, These are Troubling Times. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/21/freedom-of-speech-online-witch-hunts-law--bbc

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2015). Freedom of Expression. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en

Fraleigh, D.M. & Tuman, J.S. (2010). Freedom of Expression in the Marketplace of Ideas. London: SAGE Publications

Icelandic Human Rights Center (2018). The Right to Freedom of Expression And Religion. Retrieved from: http://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rights-education-project/human-rights-concepts-ideas-and-fora/substantive-human-rights/the-right-to-freedom-of-expression-and-religion

Klang, M. & Murray, A. (2005). Human Rights in the Digital Age. London: Psychology Press.

McWhorter, P. (2013). Seeds of Enlightened Society. New York: Xlibris Corporation

Schauer, F. (2017). Free Speech, the Search for Truth, and the Problem of Collective Knowledge. Retrieved from: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4682&context=smulr

Thompson, S. (2012). Freedom of Expression and Hatred of Religion. Ethnicities, 12(2), 215-232.

United Nations (2010). Report of the Human Rights Council. New York: United Nations Publications.

UNESCO (2018). Freedom of Expression: A Fundamental Human Right Underpinning all Civil Liberties. Retrieved from: https://en.unesco.org/70years/freedom_of_expression