Are there limits to freedom of expression?

A long-standing ethical and social debate: are there topics we should not be allowed to talk about?

Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press and offense are closely correlated terms.. It is probably the most extensive debate that has been analyzed over and over again throughout the history of mankind, from Ancient Greece to our modern times, where the dilemma is still on the table.

Often a social group, a person or a legal entity denounces or is denounced for having expressed an opinion on a subject that concerns the parties concerned. In this sense, the offense is the result at the limit of freedom of expression and, consequently, it is very difficult to measure this lack objectively.

How is freedom of expression defined?

As we pointed out in the introduction to this article, freedom of expression is a controversial subject to analyze, and so is its very definition. However, we will provide an interpretation that is as academic as possible.

Freedom of expression represents a civil or human right that all persons, regardless of their religious, ethnic or physical condition, have the legitimate power to write, speak, and narrate whatever their opinion or thought.. In this way, people are protected before the law to avoid pressures, instigations and/or prior censorship.

The origins of the debate

This concept has its origins in the middle of the 20th century, after the end of the Second World War, and was introduced in the Universal Charter of Human Rights in 1948, drafted by the United Nations (1945) and included in all the constitutions of today's democratic states.

Freedom of expression is also enshrined in freedom of the press, which is the universal medium through which citizens are informed and called upon to inform.The freedom of the press, which is the universal medium through which citizens are informed and called upon to inform, is the great adversary.

However, freedom of expression is an ancient claim since human beings organized themselves in societies where the priorities and concerns of these groups were debated in a collective forum.

Limits and controversy with freedom of expression

Freedom of expression ends when it bothers or harms the addressee, according to communication experts. But, how to determine the offense or offence of those affected? Herein lies the paradox of the term freedom.

On the other hand, the limits to freedom of expression are set by those who have the powers of dissemination channels, influence or prestige, such as multinational companies, governments and newspapers. According to a study revealed by ProPublica, censorship is usually on the side of economic elites and legitimate governments.

In this sense, we can say that freedom of expression is more a tool than an ultimate right, since depending on some interests or others, one guideline or another will be applied, as happens in portals such as Facebook or Twitter.

We live in a world of global communication, where information is practically instantaneous, and retransmissions are made live in voice and image. But even so, there are still cases of censorship or a filter is passed before revealing the news..

In Spain, for example, political representatives have had to rectify, apologize or even resign for having expressed a thought that has offended the receiver or his environment. In many cases, the law has even been applied retroactively.

Controversy, the order of the day

Let's remember Guillermo Zapata, councilman in the City Council of Madrid, was tried and sentenced for having made jokes with the victims of the Holocaust or with the physical disability of Irene Villa, all of them prior to his time as a political figure. or with the physical disability of Irene Villa, all of them prior to his stage as a political figure. He had to rectify and was denied, under public pressure, the position of Minister of Culture in the Madrid City Council.

Consequently, in order to determine the limits to freedom of expression, a measure has been proposed that analyzes the intention and the weight that the message may have. Consequently, a message, thought or narrative that incites hatred or violence is considered to be grounds for curtailing the freedom we have been given.

In order to understand this better, we will illustrate this idea by means of a concrete case. It is not the same to say "all radical Muslims must be killed and eliminated without contemplation" as it is to say "all Muslims must be eliminated". The term 'radicals' is the one that makes the difference in this example, since it attacks a specific group and not an entire community.