Freedom of Speech and Censorship- Task 1

Freedom of speech is a notion that supports an individual's or a community's right to express their thoughts and beliefs without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal action from the government. The United Nations has recognized the right to freedom of expression as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury are examples of common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech.

The history of freedom of speech and expression predates present international human rights conventions. The ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech is supposed to have developed in the late sixth or early fifth centuries BC. Erasmus and Milton both defended freedom of expression. In the 1590s, Edward Coke stated that freedom of expression was "an ancient custom of Parliament," and the Protestation of 1621 backed him up. The constitutional right of freedom of expression in Parliament, known as parliamentary privilege, was created by England's Bill of Rights in 1689. The right to freedom of expression and speech is intertwined with other rights. When it conflicts with other rights, it may be curtailed. The right to freedom of expression is linked to the right to a fair trial and legal proceedings, which might restrict access to information or limit the ways in which freedom of expression can be expressed in court. ‘’If you’re really in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favour of free speech.”- Noam Chomsky.

The suppression of speech, public communication, or other information is known as censorship. This could be done because the content is deemed unpleasant, damaging, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Governments, corporate institutions, and other controlling bodies can all practice censorship. Censorship can be used by both governments and commercial groups. Other organizations or groups may suggest or petition for censorship. Self-censorship occurs when an individual, such as an author or other creator, participates in censorship of his or her own works or speech. For a number of claimed reasons, including national security, to control obscenity, pornography, and hate speech, general censorship happens in a variety of media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet.

While defying attempts by the Athenian authorities to restrict his philosophical lectures, the Greek philosopher Socrates was accused of ancillary charges connected to the corruption of Athenian youth and sentenced to death by drinking the poison hemlock in 399 BC. Plato records the following details of Socrates' conviction. Socrates was put on trial in 399 BC, and after being found guilty of both poisoning the minds of Athens' youth and impiety (asebeia, "not trusting in the gods of the state"), he was sentenced to death by swallowing a mixture containing hemlock. Throughout history, censorship has been accused for being unjust and impeding development. Michael Landier, a social critic, asserts in a 1997 essay on Internet censorship that censorship is futile because it stops the forbidden topic from being discussed. ‘’Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever’’- Noam Chomsky.

A case study of freedom of expression from a foreign perspective is the case of Lena Hendry and Freedom of Expression in Malaysia. On 3 July 2013, Lena Hendry, a human rights defender and the Program Coordinator of the national human rights organization Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (Pusat KOMAS) at the time, co-organized a private screening of the documentary "No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka" at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Around 30 officials from the Home Ministry, Police, and Immigration Department stormed the showing, and Lena was accused on September 19, 2013, under Section 6 of the Film Censorship Act 2002(FCA) for arranging the screening without prior clearance. A fine of between RM5,000 and RM30,000 and/or a maximum of three years in prison are the penalties for violating Section 6.

The Sri Lankan government was not pleased with the documentary's broadcast since it exposed the horrible deaths and human rights violations committed in the last phases of the 26-year civil conflict. The film captures the dramatic moments when the Sri Lankan regime pushed 400,000 civilians to congregate in 'No Fire Zones,' which were then relentlessly bombarded. The Sri Lankan government has been pressuring Asian countries, particularly Malaysia, to not show the documentary since its debut. The proprietors of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall received a letter from the Sri Lanka High Commission encouraging them to cancel the screening, as well as a phone call from the Sri Lanka High Commission urging the Chairman of the venue not to go forward.

Lena Hendry was acquitted by the Magistrates' Judicial on March 10, 2016, after the prosecution failed to prove its case against her after three years of court proceedings. The acquittal was overturned by the High Court on September 21, 2016, and she was found guilty by the Magistrates' Court on February 21, 2017. She was sentenced to a RM10,000 fine or a year in prison on March 22, 2017. Following the sentence, the prosecution filed an appeal for a harsher punishment, but it was eventually withdrawn on December 14, 2017. Lena Hendry has also decided to drop her appeal against her own conviction because she has "greater battles to fight outside," and she is currently pursuing a Master's degree in human rights in the United Kingdom.

A case study of censorship from a foreign perspective is in Algeria. With these comments, Algeria's Armed Islamic Group (GIA) declared war on the media, sparking one of the most frightening recent incidents of deliberate messenger murder. Nine editors, journalists, and media workers were murdered in 1993, 19 in 1994, and 24 in 1995, with the goal of punishing and intimidating journalists away from functioning as mouthpieces for the Algerian authorities. This massacre was sparked by a dispute that erupted in 1992 when the Algerian army disrupted the National Assembly election to prevent the fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front from winning what appeared to be a sure victory (FIS).

The Algerian press, which had long been subjected to control, even during French colonial administration, was caught in the crossfire between the government and the opposition. As the conflict progressed, the authorities tightened press censorship under the guise of national security, cracking down harder on coverage of civilian deaths and instituting strict pre-censorship of all "non-official" conflict reporting in 1996. The killings might take place behind closed doors because Algeria is restricted to foreign press and independent observers. According to credible observers, between 80,000 and 100,000 civilians were killed in the frenzied carnage by 1998. Algeria's government amended its press law only in 1998, owing to constant pressure from independent freedom of expression organizations.

A case study of censorship from a local perspective is of the year 2019. Adrian Delia, the head of the opposition, has criticised the portrayal of actress Pia Zammit as a Nazi sympathiser because she took part in a stage production of 'Allo 'Allo ten years ago. "There should be no intimidation, censorship, or any other type of attack on performers if we truly believe in freedom of expression," Delia tweeted. "Art is a means of expressing oneself. "I strongly condemn the assassination attempt on actress Pia Zammit."

On Sunday, the daily It-Tora published the words of an anonymous educator who took issue with Zammit's wearing a swastika in a 2009 performance of the comedy 'Allo 'Allo.' Zammit is also an Occupy Justice activist. A photo of Zammit in a Nazi costume, which one of the actress' friends had posted on Facebook several years ago, has recently gone viral, with many people speculating that she might be a Nazi sympathiser. Tony Zarb, a former General Workers' Union head, said, "This hero of democracy clothed up as a Nazi in her youth." "Who knows what makes her so happy?" "I'm just curious." The attempt to label Zammit as a Nazi sympathiser has been condemned by Zammit as an obvious form of intimidation and censorship. "When harassment like this is tolerated, we are definitely living in Bizarro-Land," she remarked. "Actors are being publicly chastised for being actors, accused of truly being the parts they play. "In support of Zammit, several local actors have tweeted images of themselves in costume with the hashtag #ImAnActor.

A case study of freedom of speech from a local perspective is Daphne Caruana Galizia. was a Maltese writer, journalist, blogger, and anti-corruption campaigner who covered Maltese politics. She specialized in investigative journalism, covering government corruption, nepotism, favouritism, money laundering claims, linkages between Malta's online gambling business and organized crime, Malta's citizenship-by-investment system, and payments from the Azerbaijani government. Caruana Galizia's national and international reputation was founded on her consistent reporting of political wrongdoing and politically exposed individuals in Malta. Daphne Caruana Galizia received the Swedish National Press Club's 2018 Freedom of Speech award for "independent journalism with courage and integrity in times when investigative journalism is under fire."

The prize, named after murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, is granted to journalists who have distinguished themselves in their work by defending freedom of speech and press. "Despite threats and intimidation, Caruana Galizia persisted in her efforts to expose abuses of power and corruption." "She is granted the prize posthumously to honour her work and to remember her life," the Swedish National Press Club said in a statement.

Article 10 safeguards one's right to hold and express one's own beliefs without interference from the government. This includes the freedom to express oneself orally (for example, through public protests and demonstrations) or in writing (for example, through published articles, books, or leaflets), on television or radio, or on the internet and social media. The legislation also safeguards an individual's right to receive information from others by participating in an audience or reading a magazine. The topic of free speech seemed to be especially pertinent today. For indicating that British colonization was not all awful, or for making a light-hearted remark in the elevator, academics can be chastised and even suspended. Trolls threaten to rape or behead individuals who disagree with their viewpoints. A collection of minor celebrities is pushing to further restrict journalistic freedom. In these circumstances, it is critical to set some guidelines for determining what is permissible and what the moral limitations of free expression are. This is easier said than done, given the prevalence of relativism: my freedom of expression could lead to costly litigation or physical vengeance.

Free speech proponents typically limit speech limitations to 'direct' consequences such as violence or defamation. Others believe the damage principle's definition is too limited. They believe that certain types of communication can be emotionally hurtful, socially marginalizing, and even hateful. They argue that communication that causes "indirect" injuries should be prohibited as well. As a result, some argue that citizens have no right to be disrespectful or insulting. Others, though, disagree. Some argue that offending has no social or psychological consequences. Furthermore, they claim that we can't forecast what forms of communication may offend people. The question of whether or not communication is permissible becomes subjective. Some people may find any viewpoint offensive if it differs from their own, leading to increased requests for censorship. A number of thinkers have responded by claiming that offending is bad and causes injury. They also claim that it has nefarious consequences on societal cohesion because victims are constantly vulnerable.

Despite the importance of the five First Amendment liberties, freedom of expression is a cornerstone of any democratic and free society. "Freedom of speech is a human right and the cornerstone upon which democracy is based," said activist Deeyah Khan. Any limitation on freedom of expression is a limitation on democracy." According to a recent Freedom Forum survey from 2021, 59 percent of respondents believe that freedom of speech is the "most important" freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Sometimes the most effective speech is delivered without using any words at all. The "Silent Sentinels," coordinated by Alice Paul, a Quaker women's rights activist committed to nonviolence and women's suffrage, staged one of the most famous protests of the Women's Suffrage Movement. During Woodrow Wilson's administration, from January 1917 until June 1919, the Silent Sentinels protested in front of the White House. In favor of women's right to vote, demonstrators wore sashes, hoisted banners, and carried flags with messages on them. Throughout their two-and-a-half-year-long vigil, one of the longest continuous protests in American history, many of the nearly 2,000 women who picketed suffered from police brutality. In November of 1917, many of the Silent Sentinels were arrested and imprisoned, and further suffered cruelties that included being force-fed, beaten, choked, and abused until they were released weeks later.

Over the course of the entire Silent Sentinel protest, nearly 500 women were arrested and 168 served jail time for their steadfast belief in the importance of women’s rights. These protests became one of the most effective in American history and helped spur the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women the Constitutional right to vote. Censorship is something that happens in every country on the planet. Although not all countries practice the same types of censorship or have the same levels of censorship, all civilizations are influenced in some way. In a broad sense, censorship is the monitoring and control of information and ideas that circulate among society's citizens. However, censorship can be implemented in a variety of ways.

An example of censorship in the past is in the year of 1722. Benjamin Franklin's older brother, James, the printer of "The New-England Courant," was imprisoned for several weeks in 1722 for publishing government criticism, and the younger Franklin, at 16, was named publisher for the duration of the imprisonment. In 1723, James Franklin ran into trouble with the authorities once more, went into hiding, and resumed publishing under his younger brother's name. While Malta is a generally free country with a constitution that protects freedom of expression and the press, these rights are not always respected. Various pieces of legislation, such as the Maltese Criminal Code and the Press Act, have reinforced and limited these liberties over time. Malta's official religion is Roman Catholic, and with 98 percent of the population practicing the faith, the church has enormous power and has stifled freedom of expression.

"Whoever publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means," according to Article 163 of the Maltese Criminal Code (Reporters Without Borders). Malta's number of people convicted of "public blasphemy" reduced somewhat from 119 to 99 between 2011 and 2015.

Durov's departure sparked a lot of discussion about Russia's censorship climate. He has stated that he intends to launch a new social network and that he relocated because "the country is currently incompatible with Internet commerce." This follows Sina Weibo's initial public offering in the United States, which has been dubbed "China's Twitter." According to Mashable, when Sina Weibo filed its initial public offering, Chinese censorship was specifically mentioned as a risk concern.

Unsurprisingly, censorship has a significant impact on how social networks evolve and how people use them. However, some of the specific effects of censorship are startling. When particularly popular websites are taken down, Ethan Zuckerman, the director of the MIT Center for Civic Media, and other experienced critics have suggested that suppression can actually strengthen opposition. If YouTube is prohibited, for example, a person who only accesses YouTube for cat videos will be notified that something major has occurred, even if that person does not generally pay attention to the news. However, there are other instances where censorship has decimated social media sites.

Controlling or suppressing the publication or accessing of information on the Internet is known as Internet censorship. It might be carried out at the request of the government or on their own initiative by governments or private entities. Individuals and groups may self-censor for a variety of reasons, including intimidation and fear. The problems with online censorship are comparable to those with offline censorship of traditional media. One distinction is that online, national borders are more permeable: people of a country that prohibits the dissemination of particular information might find it on websites housed outside the country.

As a result, even though they have no physical or legal authority over the websites themselves, censors must try to limit access to content. This necessitates the employment of Internet-specific technical censorship techniques like site blocking and content filtering. The increased use of social media in various countries has resulted in citizens organizing protests via social media, dubbed "Twitter Revolutions." Parts of the Arab Spring demonstrations, which began in 2010, were the most noteworthy of these social media-led rallies. The Tunisian authorities initiated a hack of Tunisian people' Facebook accounts in response to the usage of social media in these protests, with allegations of accounts being deleted.

Because research has shown that criticism is tolerated on social media sites, it is not restricted unless there is a greater likelihood of collective action. It makes no difference whether the criticism is positive or negative toward the leaders of the states; the main goal of banning specific social media posts is to ensure that no major actions are taken as a result of something expressed on the internet. Posts that question the Chinese Communist Party's political leadership role in the government are more likely to be blocked because they pose a threat to the Chinese Communist Party. Certain hashtags on TikTok have been classified by the platform's coding, which dictates how viewers can interact with the content or hashtag in question.

The concept of freedom of information arose in response to government-sponsored internet censorship, monitoring, and surveillance. Controlling or suppressing the publication or accessing of information on the Internet is referred to as Internet censorship. The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to be able to remove impediments to the "free flow of information" in "closed societies." Mainland China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam are among the countries on the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) "online enemy list" that participate in widespread internet censorship. The "Great Firewall of China" is a well-known example of internet censorship (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and the ancient Great Wall of China).

In Malta there are several examples of censorship. One of them happend in 2010. Because they were explicitly pornographic, two "artistic" images of a Gozitan model, submitted by a Gozitan artist, were not allowed to participate in the Gozo Arts Festival. Both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono said the decision was made by the head of the Ministry for Gozo's Culture Section and the curator of the Gozo International Contemporary Arts Festival collective exhibition in response to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Owen Bonnici. Dr. Bonnici wanted confirmation that the police had previously asked the proprietor of a youth institution in Gozo to erase a number of images of a Gozitan model for the same reasons.

Another example of censorship in Malta was in in the same year as the example of before, but it was a book. One of its works, by noted novelist Mario Azzopardi, was the latest victim of censoring, according to a publishing business. Mr Azzopardi's collection of young adult fiction, Vampir U Rakkonti Ora, which was published last month for the 2010 edition of Malta's Book Fair, was "absurdly prohibited" from school libraries, according to Horizons Ltd. They stated that the School Library Services Section had issued an order prohibiting the inclusion of some "young adult material" in secondary school libraries. The stated reason given, according to Horizons Ltd, was that Mr Azzopardi's novels were not suited for a young reading population and had been classified as "adult fiction," which the publishers described as "totally unpredictable."

References:

• CIVICUS (2021). SLAPP - a threat to free speech and the press - CIVICUS - Tracking conditions for citizen action. [online] Civicus.org. Available at: https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/12/03/slapps-threat-free-speech-press-malta/#:~:text=Malta%20is%20considered%20 [Accessed 18 May 2022].

• Anastaplo, G. (2018). Censorship. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship.

• The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (2017). Freedom of speech. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech.

• Columbia.edu. (2016). Censorship in the Digital Age | School of Journalism. [online] Available at: https://journalism.columbia.edu/censorship-digital-age.

• Committee to Protect Journalists (2019). 10 Most Censored Countries. [online] Committee to Protect Journalists. Available at: https://cpj.org/reports/2019/09/10-most-censored-eritrea-north-korea-turkmenistan-journalist/.

• MaltaToday.com.mt. (n.d.). ‘Freedom of expression’ also means the freedom to talk out of your ass. [online] Available at: https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/comment/blogs/92819/freedom_of_expression_also_means_the_freedom_to_talk_out_of_your_ass#.Yopl26hBy3A [Accessed 20 May 2022].

• Times of Malta. (n.d.). Freedom of speech has limits – Colm Regan. [online] Available at: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/freedom-of-speech-has-limits-colm-regan.799623 [Accessed 20 May 2022].

• MaltaToday.com.mt. (n.d.). Censorship in Malta: from ‘Li tkisser sewwi’ to a carnival pastiche. [online] Available at: https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/100145/from_li_tkisser_sewwi_to_a__carnival_pastiche#.YopmbKhBy3A [Accessed 21 May 2022].