1. World problems
  2. Restriction of freedom of expression

Restriction of freedom of expression

  • Dependence on restriction of freedom of expression
  • Denial of right to freedom of expression
  • Denial of freedom of speech
  • Denial of right to communicate
  • Suppression of public debate

Nature

Limiting freedom of expression may lead to exploitation, indoctrination, apathy, alienation and general stagnation as a result of inequality and injustice. It may serve to strengthen political dictatorship and government control or moralistic repression. Methods include censorship; the refusal of licence (where it is necessary); injunctions; damages; denial of distribution and news access; restrictive taxation, subsidies and importation laws; interference; copyright; monopoly; commercialism; scarcity of resources; curtailment by governments of access to newsprint; corruption; and public opinion. Restrictions may be exercised by the government, private firms and authorities, or by the public.

Incidence

The restriction of freedom of expression is a pervasive issue affecting numerous countries worldwide. According to the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, over 70% of countries experience significant limitations on media freedom, with authoritarian regimes often leading in censorship practices. Regions such as the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia are particularly affected, where laws and regulations stifle dissent and control public discourse. Reports indicate that journalists and activists face harassment, imprisonment, or violence, highlighting the severe implications of these restrictions on civil liberties.
A notable instance occurred in 2020 in Belarus, where widespread protests erupted following the presidential election. The government responded with a brutal crackdown on dissent, including the arrest of journalists and the blocking of independent media outlets. The authorities imposed severe restrictions on public gatherings and utilized internet blackouts to suppress information flow, illustrating the extreme measures taken to curtail freedom of expression during a critical political moment.
This information has been generated by artificial intelligence.

Claim

An idea deeply embedded in liberal democracies is that people are equally empowered to engage in debate and freely express their ideas. But is this really so? The public sphere is a fractured space of competing elites. Idealistic visions of equal access fail to acknowledge disparities of knowledge and resources between social elites and disempowered groups. In this respect, it is useful to remember that the kinds of speech and actions that society deems acceptable are historically contingent and an effect of power relations.

There seems to be a movement in modern society to avoid information, theories or opinions that trigger cognitive dissonance and the associated psychological pain. Often associated with terms such as “cancel culture,” “virtue signaling,” and “wokeism,” this movement appears to have manifested as a belief system which holds that both individuals as well as the collective body politic have a fundamental right to intellectual protection, to not encounter unpleasant thoughts, information or ideas that are inconsistent with their internal model of reality. These are the intellectual roots which nurture censorship, denialism, and the weaponized gaslighting, defamation and slander that many have experienced, as well as the idea that anything which causes individuals to lose faith in their government constitutes domestic terrorism and should be treated as such.

There is a long and rich human history of punishment by death for such dissident thought crimes. I suggest that these behaviors and actions are among the ugliest manifestations of the unpleasant tribal human tendency to reject those who are willing to speak inconvenient truths, and that this tendency has always been behind the dark reactionary aspect of common processes by which scientific and medical knowledge advance. Awareness of this phenomenon is not something just recently discovered. It extends back even before Galileo Galilei and the Roman Catholic Inquisition to at least the fourth century BC, and probably further beyond that into the mists of time.

Counter-claim

While some may argue that freedom of expression is under threat, I contend that this issue is overstated. In today's world, diverse platforms allow for a multitude of voices, often amplifying opinions rather than silencing them. The real challenge lies in discerning credible information amidst the noise, not in a lack of expression. Prioritizing responsible discourse over unrestricted speech is essential for societal progress, making the so-called restriction of expression a minor concern in the grand scheme.This information has been generated by artificial intelligence.

Broader

Denial of rights
Unpresentable

Narrower

Censorship
Presentable
Cancel culture
Presentable

Aggravates

Aggravated by

Postmodernism
Excellent
Authoritarianism
Presentable
Conservatism
Yet to rate

Reduces

Slander
Presentable
Libel
Presentable
Emotionalism
Presentable
Verbal ugliness
Yet to rate
Bad taste
Yet to rate

Related

Strategy

Value

Freedom
Presentable
Suppression
Yet to rate
Self-expression
Yet to rate
Self-denial
Yet to rate
Restriction
Yet to rate
Independence
Yet to rate
Dependence
Yet to rate
Denial
Yet to rate

Reference

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal #1: No PovertySustainable Development Goal #9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Metadata

Database
World problems
Type
(C) Cross-sectoral problems
Biological classification
N/A
Subject
  • Communication » Communication
  • Government » Public
  • Medicine » Hearing, speech
  • Social activity » Debate
  • Societal problems » Dependence
  • Societal problems » Deprivation
  • Societal problems » Restrictions
  • Content quality
    Presentable
     Presentable
    Language
    English
    1A4N
    C2162
    DOCID
    11321620
    D7NID
    136159
    Last update
    May 1, 2024
    Official link