Limitation of Speech

People have a lot of opinions and ideas of what freedom of speech is, what it should cover, and when it should be limited, if ever.  One of the things that is difficult with regard to freedom of speech is the concept of a universal definition.  When people think of the concept, the first place their mind usually travels to is the USA, particularly because of the first amendment of the US constitution, and that's cute but that only applies to the USA and despite what many Americans like to think, the USA isn't the whole world.  Go beyond its borders and the definition of freedom of speech varies quite a bit.  In the UK for example, freedom of speech in UK law is not defined as an absolute right as it is in the USA.  Under UK law, freedom of speech is defined as a negative right, defined by what you can and cannot do as opposed to giving you the right first and then limiting it - or to put it plainly, UK law does not grant an individual that right at all, it implies that right by limitations.  The only place UK citizens can actually derive the right to freedom of speech in the absolute right in the same vein as US citizens is actually from laws passed by the Council of Europe - not to be confused with the European Union.  The Council of Europe is a separate distinct entity.

These laws implement the European Convention on Human Rights which was enacted in 1950, prior to this, UK citizens had no absolute right to freedom of speech, and if the UK were to ever resign from the Council and withdraw from its treaties then its citizens would lose that absolute right.  It's also worth noting here once again for emphasis, the Council of Europe is distinct from the European Union, Brexit has no effect on its membership thereof, and there is no intention for the UK to leave the Council any time soon.

What this little fact should highlight however is the reality that freedom of speech as an absolute right is a relatively recent concept for the UK and most of Europe.  Whilst the USA can claim a longer history of the right, beyond these nations the concept is not as widely held as people like to believe.  Freedom of speech varies greatly by country with many having no concept of it within their national laws at all, with citizens relying on various international organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Council to uphold their own conventions.  The trouble with the vast majority of these organisations is that they have no executive or legislative power.  In other words, they can't enforce anything they pass as each member remains sovereign, which is one of the reasons why human rights violations are still prevalent in the global stage and very little is ever done about them, the other being that people generally don't care what happens outside their own borders, as much as they may profess to care during times of catastrophe and tragedy on the international stage, the rest of the time people give little or no thought to these issues unless it's part of their job.

What does that mean for civil liberties?  Well the answer is quite short - it means you are on your own when it comes to challenging your national government.  The laws that are passed within your own country are subject only to the checks and balances that exist within your legislative framework, and even then as been demonstrated in recent years on both sides of the Atlantic, people who are supposed to be World Leaders have disregarded basic human rights in pursuit of their own political agendas, often to the cries of approval from their supporters.  This should serve as a reminder to everyone who sees this and recognises it for what it is, that the rights you have, only exist so long as someone else says they do, if that person changes their mind or decides to ignore them completely, then those rights evaporate in an instant, no matter what laws exist to protect you.  There will come a time when these rights will be challenged and I do not mean in faux outrage and sensationalist veins that mainstream media tries to incite, I mean in terms of a very real, direct challenge.

You may find yourself denying such a thing could ever happen, or questioning how such a moment could ever come to be, and again the question can be answered by looking at precedent and seeing where and when this has already happened.  Time and again, these changes happen in society when perception of the populace convinces people that such change is warranted.  There is a cycle that exists with all legislation and all liberty and it goes as such:

During stage 1, Absolute liberty exists, during this stage you are allowed to do something without limitation, usually because no laws exist to cover whatever it is you are doing, let's use flying a drone as an example.

During stage 2, Absolute liberty is abused, individuals or groups exploit the fact they can do something without limitation and behave in ways that the populace start to perceive as negative.  In our drone flying example, people start invading others privacy, flying in areas where other people would rather they didn't, spying through bedroom windows, flying over their property, landing on their roofs etc.

During stage 3, that abuse reaches a tipping point where it passes from annoyance into the remit of endangering the populace as a whole.  In our drone flying example this can be demonstrated by events such as drones colliding with aircraft, or the interference with air traffic at an airport as was demonstrated by the Gatwick Airport Incident in December 2018.

During stage 4, laws are proposed that limit the liberty that once existed, there is a conflict here between those who are proponents, and those who are opponents.  At this stage it is very rare for opponents to actually win, even if the proposed laws get rewritten and become less invasive than those that were first proposed, the absolute liberty no longer exists.

During stage 5, those laws are enacted and either prove sufficient, or they prove ineffective in which case the original much more invasive laws that were proposed are once again brought forward and they will usually pass.

Whether it happens during stage 4 or stage 5, the limitation of the absolute liberty that once exist eventually occurs.  This happens predictably, and is the result of the abuse of the absolute liberty that once existed.  Which brings us back to the idea of freedom of speech.  Right now for many this exists as an absolute liberty, either through national laws or through convention as we discussed above.  However, that liberty was originally intended to allow individuals to have the right to express themselves freely without the government being able to stop them from doing so, they were never intended to be used as weapons.  They were intended to be a defence to prevent the individual from being attacked for expressing their point of view, the trouble is that is not how these laws are now being used.

As far as freedom of speech is concerned, we are now in stage 3, where whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, there are those who exploit these laws to attack others.  Your point of view is irrelevant here, your political persuasion is also irrelevant, which side of the argument you are on is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the fact that this discourse that exists has descended now to the point where speech leads to actions that break other laws.  The absolute liberty is being used as a weapon, and it is endangering the populace, how many people are endangered is growing in number every day.  The same cycle that applies to every liberty that has existed will also apply here.  The exploitation of freedom of speech in this manner is what will ultimately lead it to be restricted, and the irony therein will be that those who used it as a weapon, are those who will suffer the most when they have it taken away from them because they are the ones who rely on it the most.

What it will take to tip us from stage 3 into stage 4 or 5 is not yet clear, but what is clear right now is that there is growing discontent within the populace as a whole for the ineptitude of those perceived to be authority figures for failing to tackle this extremism.  The number of people who are willing to give up freedom of speech as an absolute liberty and accept some limitation to prevent that extremism is growing, because those people no longer feel protected by that right, they feel endangered by it.  As long as the alternative seems safer to them, they will embrace it.  If you do not believe this to be true then my only real retort is to say that it is not uncommon for homeless individuals to deliberately break the law with the intent of being imprisoned in order have somewhere to live with food and drink provided.  That may seem extreme to some people but given the choice between being housed in a prison or sleeping rough on the streets, there are those who choose the former, and the reason in most cases for that choice is because the latter actually seems more dangerous to them than the former - people ultimately choose whatever they think will be safer and more secure for them, even if it means sacrificing liberty to do so.

If you want another example which is much more extreme then you can look to Northern Ireland, during the period of time known as the Troubles the government introduced its policy of Internment, this policy allowed for the arrest and imprisonment without warrant, charge, or trial of any individual.  The police and security forces could literally stop anyone they wanted, arrest them, and put them into internment camps where they could be held indefinitely.  This policy was enacted because of the limitations of existing laws that made it difficult to arrest and charge individuals they suspected were part of terrorist activities but had no substantive proof.  This policy was protested by many civil liberties groups at the time, is still regarded as one of the grossest violations of human rights the British Government has ever made within the UK, and crucially, happened whilst the UK was a member of the Council of Europe, meaning it violated the Human Rights that were established by the convention, in other words, those laws don't protect you from a government that wants to violate them.