In this civilised era, one of the most emphasized fundamental human right of every citizen in a country apart from right to life is freedom of speech, though it is not really applicable to everyone in the globe. it is totally dependent on the kind system of government practiced in such a country. freedom of speech which I understood to be the right of an individual to freely express his/herself in which ever he/she considers to be appropriate without the fear of being coerced/silenced or punished
Despite how freedom of speech has become a symbol of liberation and a tool for revolution. which has been an effective weapon in the arsenal of most protestant, making governmental and private institutions wary of its capabilities in causing change in system of government or causing policy somersault. Due to this some limitations were placed to reduce the rate at which people can exercise this right.
π£πΎπππππΎπ½ πππππ πΌπΊπππΊ
Though the limitations of freedom of speech might seem reasonably and logical at first but to an extent it has deprived people the ability to express this right, which has invaded or corrupted the major essence of the foundation and establishment of this right in the first place. One of the negative causes of freedom of speech is defamation, which means an "untrue" spoken statement or written which is capable of or considered to have caused injury to a person/persons or an organisation/entity/institution reputation or social/public identity. in the simpler sense, An harmful spoken or written words capable of harming a person or an organisation. defamation is categorised into two, Libel (written words) & slander (spoken words).
Remember I quoted "untrue" in the definition of defamation above, this is where it gets complicated. the concept of truth is subjective and in court the only way prove something is true is by backing it up with substantial evidence, which means you might know it is true but have no evidence to support your claim.
Source
In some cases the defamatory word might be true based on evidence and facts but the plaintiff (a person that laid a complaint in court/ a person that sues another) might claim that the defamatory word is made of private information, which makes it an invasion of privacy. then the defendant (an individual being prosecuted or sued in court) will either plead guilty or provide a justification for his/her actions, for example the defendant can claim the information is beneficial to the public, which means he or she is performing public duty by exposing such information. regardless of the justification or fact to support your claim not everyone escapes being sued for defamation and the consequences are very expensive
Due to to this loop hole in the limitations to freedom of speech, which is mostly used by the elite against the masses or less privileged in court, it has forced a lot of people into silence because most people can't afford a lawyer or the consequences of being guilty of defamation. this has resulted to citizens totally forfeiting their fundamental human right of freedom of speech, this is also applicable to mass media both print and broadcast, that is why you notice that most news agencies are being careful with words especially when dealing with politicians.
Recently I found out about an unfamiliar story about a man named Mr Jonathan Lee who was awarded recently the highest number of lawsuits in court by Guinness book of records, with a total number of 260 people sued and he won. As in he sues anyone for anything especially on the grounds of defamation. Won't you be terrified of what to say to this person despite the fact that you are exercising your fundamental human right of freedom of speech. even by mentioning his name I'm extremely terrified ππ
Source
Based on the above explanation it can be deduced that freedom of speech is just a right stated on paper but not really applicable In reality, just like libertarian right of the press or mass media or the way some countries claim they are practicing democracy but they are not, So is freedom of speech. it is just a speculation, a make belief to make citizens feel they have a say in the affairs of the state and also make them feel better about themselves.
Source
It is definitely right to privacy, compared to freedom of speech, right to privacy is still more realistic unlike the hypocritical practice of freedom of speech which only exist on paper. Though there are some grounds in which right to privacy can be intentionally violated just like I mentioned above in the justification for defamation and sometimes unintentionally especially during this era of technological advancements. they are some apps and site that require our private informations and eventually put us at risk my leaking it to third party service providers.
Apart from that, right to privacy is something that is self bestowed, it like an individual right to breath, every human is capable of protecting their privacy, unlike freedom of speech which is a right that is considered a privilege given my the government which can be disallowed when they see fit. you can't just invade my privacy because I won't allow it apart from on legal grounds but I can be silenced and lose my freedom of speech in many ways either legal or illegal.you can be forced, intimidated and threatened into silence either you are like it or not, either you are right or wrong, either you are willing or unwilling.
Can you imagine bathing in the bathroom and someone comes around, take a picture of you but you are unable to do anything because you don't have a right to privacy, which means you subjected to rape and molestation because you don't have a right to privacy
Definitely not, absence freedom of speech just means my right to speak will be limited it doesn't mean I can't speak at all but at least I get to decide how information about me will be used and the amount of information I want to disclose to the public.
So how can I be affected by losing my freedom of speech right, a right I don't have or I can't exercise in the first place.
This write-up was inspired by weekly featured content titled "Freedom of speech or right to privacy" in hive learners community.
