Freedom of Speech Supposed

Many Indonesians know at article 28E the 1945 Constitution written about the freedom of speech. Many world citizens claim, not everyone can limit the freedom of speech; we can express our opinions and publish everything that we want. So it means as a democratic country, are we had an absolute freedom of speech? Nevertheless, in this case I do not agree at all. Flash back to Charlie Hebdo tragedy we can see the dangerous of an absolute freedom of speech. Therefore, this essay written to inform that freedom of speech must be able to justifiable and prove restriction is required.

            Talked about the first amendment to the United States constitution “Freedom of speech”, many argue that freedom of speech is an absolute. The first amendment guarantees freedom concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. I consider this amendment regarded as the foundation, why nowadays beliefs conflicts are common happens. Many people are wrong to definite and use their freedom of speech.

            According to Peter Sagal on his interview with Salman Rushdie (2013), Freedom of speech means “freedom to offend”. For me Freedom of speech means freedom to speak, write, and criticize inequity with the big responsibility and no offends others. Speech can be a crime if you wrong to use it.

For me the responsible freedom of speech is essential and it means we should respect all persons and their beliefs without vilification and discrimination. (Ahmed, 2011) The case of May 1998 in Indonesia, remind us that the religious tolerance and racial conflict are usually happen in a whole of world. The majority group often claims that their beliefs are best and they have a right to express it by killing others (minority). As an educated person, I do very hate this “stupid” conflict. What is wrong with minority? Actually, we can use our freedom of speech in the form of tolerable not judging or killing others.

            In the case of Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hebdo newspaper which is known as a satirical publication whose just purpose to sell copies by mocking, offending, mortifying and deriding beliefs, especially Muslims and Catholics, is an example why we have to limit the freedom of speech. They claimed they have the right to do so because it is their freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. Is it worth? Obviously no, it is not worth at all. What is the difference between Charlie and terrorist? Nothing, because they were both kill human, and in this case, words killed human soul. (Piccolo, 2015)

            From the two cases above, I see that Indonesia and French are a free and democratic country, which needs the restricted freedom of speech in some circumstances. In addition, all countries need too. These restrictions refer to restrictions for cause of hate, offensiveness, sensibility, and power. Yes, freedom of speech is quite “sensitive” and sometimes it offends a group or someone although it talks about the truth. (Reasons to Restrict Free Speech, 2012)

            Talking about freedom of speech, it is strange if we did not talk about mass media. Nowadays, mass media used as a vital instrument to report the events, spread the information, critic the government and can control the activities of state authorities. Mass media transformed into the great new power which is many societies abused it become an absolute of speech. Some people utilize media to point citizen’s minds and opinions by propaganda, for example in Indonesia on the election period. As a good democratic society, we should selected mass media and demand it if it necessary. Therefore, the society can play their role perfectly by controlling mass media as an exercise responsible-freedom of expression

            Furthermore, restricting freedom of speech has some advantages for us. As stated by John Stuart Mill (1859), freedom of speech used to right or renewal false received opinions. Freedom of speech can clarify the false issue, which is evolving in society. Uses the responsible freedom of speech also makes us think critically and practice us how to choose polite words, make a good and interesting statement, or make a new friends with them who agree with your opinion. If you use your freedom of speech well, you will get good responses or maybe good advices too to make your work better. How great it is!

            Actually, how far are the limits required at the freedom of speech? According to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), “the limits of freedom of speech should base to the main condition: obligatory in a democratic society to build a good law of democracy. Freedom of expression is not only important in its own right but is also fundamental if other human rights are to be achieved.”

            At the end, I do not agree with the absolute or limit freedom of speech, including for a free and democratic country. A speech must have standards set, which is, means no offend, insult, or mock others. Government and resident should stop any types of abuse; declare laws that protect people’s dignity or boycott them who “kill” other souls by words, as Charlie Hebdo did, and exercise any types of media. I believe the limit of freedom of speech will pacify our complicated world. Let us make a “freedom” at the freedom of speech inspiring and give the readers goodness.

           

           

Bibliography

Reasons to Restrict Free Speech. (2012, December 29). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from simply Philosophy: http://simplyphilosophy.org/reasons-to-restrict-free-speech/

Ahmed, W. (2011, March 26). the age it pro. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from the age it pro: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/should-we-have-an-absolute-freedom-of-speech-20110325-1c9x1.html

Cate, I. (2013). Speech, Truth, and Freedom. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 22.

Nations, T. G. (1948). Freedom of Expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (p. 19).

Piccolo, O. L. (2015, January 18). Freedom of speech should be limited. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from the daily gazzette: http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2015/jan/18/0118_online/

Sagal, P. (2013). Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech? Retrieved February 8, 2015, from Constitution USA With Peter Sagal: http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/limits-free-speech/#.VNdc5tKUeE5