Today Western, democratic societies would view human rights as being absolute and therefore being unable to be removed from the people. They would view certain rights as natural God given necessities. However, Blackburn argues that Human rights claim far too much which cannot be reasonably delivered. He suggests that the public demand more and more rights and that such things open the ‘gates’ to people wanting more. Although the UN argues that Human rights are “the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality” (Blackburn: 103), Blackburn disagrees. He feels that Human rights lead to people claiming more ludicrous rights such as “failure from failure to get a job through being unable to perform it” (Blackburn: 103).
All people are born with natural rights such as freedom of speech and movement but many cultures suppress these natural, God-given rights. There still remain many cultures where human rights can be given, taken away, and modified by a Government to suit its needs. Rights in these countries are results of regulations and from these ‘real laws’ come real rights. In these cultures, natural rights are simply nonsense as society is not seen to be born with any rights. Our society today reflects the ideas of John Locke, who argued that the state’s law stems from a constitution, the legal framework of the society. The constitution itself is based on natural law, and therefore the power of the state is subject to inalienable human rights. The state should protect individuals from the actions of others that would impinge on their freedoms. Our society would like to follow Immanuel Kant’s ideas that proposed that each individual freedom should not impinge on the freedom of others. Freedom of expression is a necessity within the society that we live in but really Human rights can only be applied to Western societies who choose to adopt them. Liberties such as freedom of expression and association should be absolute, although they should exist in such a way as not to deprive others of their ability to achieve their own liberties. The UN claim that free speech is always under threat. Measures are taken to prevent a free flow of information in all circumstances and George Orwell addressed this issue stating that “everyone has the right to say things that others do not want to hear” (Hamelink: 139).
There are reasons why freedom of expression is essential to a free society. Freedom of expression encompasses speech, the press, assembly and petition. It is the foundation of self-fulfilment and enables us to realise our full potential as a human being. It should be the right of individuals to express their thoughts, desires, and aspirations. We should all be able to communicate freely with each other in order to feel fully part of our society. Freedom of expression is a hugely important part of our lives and should not be neglected because of any other goals of society or Government.
Freedom of expression is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge. When communicating with others, we are able to learn much as well as passing on any information that we may know. If this freedom of expression were to be taken away from society, then we would jeopardise our access to information and therefore our ability to learn. It is necessary to our system of self-government. If we are to truly be free and in control of our Government, then we must be well informed. We must have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Communication is a key part of this and it is in countries and societies where communication fails that tyranny’s can form.
Freedom of expression provides a "check" against possible government corruption. We are able to choose who we wish to govern us and can change this if we please. Restrictions on freedom of speech always authorise the government to decide how, and against whom, the restrictions should apply. A perfect example of this is Saddam Hussain’s leadership where it is him that that has complete control over the people Iraq and restricts their freedom to speak. The more authority the government has, the more it will use that authority to suppress unpopular minorities, criticism and dissent. Freedom of expression is the most basic need of a free society and therefore should never be forgotten or dismissed by a Government or leader. Everyone should have the right to hold opinions without interference and also have the right to freedom of expression. This right should include
“a freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” ().
Freedom of Information is also another very important Human Right that is essential
to society. Freedom of Information gives citizens access to official information hold by government and other public authorities. Freedom of Information is important because it prevents unnecessary official secrecy and promotes a free flow of information across the globe. The United Nations Human Rights declaration requires authorities to produce publication schemes describing information they publish proactively. It would challenge Cabinet Office’s decisions to withhold the names of those individuals seconded to it who have not agreed to be identified.
Another attempt to protect Freedom of Information for society is the data protection act, where the government is not legally allowed to destroy records concerning issues relating to the public. It provides vital information for the public regarding public and private matters that concern us. Freedom of Information ensures that we can learn every thing that happens around the World. Without freedom of expression and information, we would be without vital, needed human rights.
When considering how essential rights are to human existence must also discuss the fact that all Human rights are subject to certain restrictions within society that respect the rights and reputations of others. Although we should be able to say what we want, we should ensure that it does not offend others. This is where our human rights are limited. We must consider groups such as the National Front when discussing the natural right of freedom of expression. This group may offend many but they could argue that they deserve freedom of expression just as much as every one else. Their marches and beliefs must be tolerated within a democratic society although a line must be drawn where their actions cause actual harm to others. This is where Human right laws may result in conflict.
In Britain, the Government has passed a Human Rights Act and this is intended to signal a commitment to equal treatment, justice, and freedom from unwarranted interference. An emphasis has been placed upon Human Rights, integrity and racial equality. However, there is still a lack of reform in areas such as Police work where the number of deaths whilst in custody continues to rise. Concern has been raised over issues such as the liberal use of CS gas and corruption within the troops themselves. It is very difficult to make Police accountable for their actions. Therefore, when we discuss the claim that freedom of expression and the collection of information are both fundamental rights we must realise the limitations. Human rights in the World today only really apply to democratic countries and even then, there are still injustices. Although one may believe that we are born with these rights and that they are essential to a human existence, there are still societies that dismiss the whole idea of Human rights and liberty.
Ultimately, I agree with Hamelink’s argument that “Human rights provide currently the only universally available set of standards for the dignity and integrity of all human beings” (Hamelink: 59). There should be a defence of Human rights all around the World as they are “a set of moral claims that is accepted universally and that is worth defending” (Hamelink: 60). There is obviously a complex moral argument that suggests that we would silence those saying things that we do not want to hear. Therefore, we must adopt a moral maturity where we allow all voices to speak out to eliminate the threat of censorship over communication. There will always have to be constraints on Human rights in order to maintain a efficient and working society but these constraints should never disallow freedom of speech or information. These Human rights are constantly under threat when Journalists are killed and films are prohibited. Therefore, we do not necessarily have these essential rights.
“There is no globally co-ordinated response to the threats posed by various forms of censorship” (Hamelink: 151). In order to target this, we must firstly combat why Human rights are not understood Worldwide and tackle this. Every one is entitled to the right to knowledge, freedom of speech and the free passing of information. All three of these are essential Human rights which should never be constrained.
Bibliography:
Blackburn, S. Being Good: a short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Hamelink, C. The ethics of cyberspace. London: Sage, 2000.
References:
Horner, D. Communication Ethics. 2002.
Word Count: 1972
