CENSORSHIP AND ITS INFLUENCES ON “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”

The institution of South Africa allows citizens to speak their minds freely, unthreatened by public scrutiny. People should also be able to publicize their opinions and viewpoints without fear of prosecution but how far are people willing to go and how do these free expressions influence and affect the next party? Freedom of speech therefore, has some limitation. We are free to speak our minds and express our opinions but cannot and should not be allowed to defame or offend another individual. This is where censorship plays its role. It silences people in a sense and therefore protects democratic rights.

This protection of democratic rights does not always apply to every state. Elections in Iran, for example, resulted in opposition to the new government but debate and voicing of opinions about this were left disallowed by state censorship. The objective of censorship attempts is to try to block and control what is said and heard. However, the focus of these attempts is the medium.

The bill of rights makes no attempt to distinguish between the author of a particular piece of information, the hosting provider or other parties involved in the diffusion of the material considered offensive. It does not distinguish between material originated in a specific state and makes it illegal to publish some material on the internet that are completely legal in all other types of media. In other words, individuals are free to say and show how they feel depending, of course, on what medium of expression they choose to use. The so-called map of the media world is a changing one. The bill of rights cannot constantly change its regulations. This would be insanely impossible.

Another limitation of state censorship with regards to state oppression in Iran is the fact that the ongoing stories and terrorist attacks of the state is constantly media bait. Iran always seems to be showcased in the media worldwide. It is therefore impossible for state censors to forbid free expressions as this issue is highly publicized. Religious and political leaders may try to control the flow of information but not only is this virtually impossible but individual rights may also be violated and useful information may be hidden. Democracies do not officially permit censorship, but many try to censor radical behaviour which is not always manageable. The reports on the intensified role of state censorship in Israeli media are, however, being examined.

The You Tube clip and report that was supposed to be viewed for this task, has raised the
question of what is really considered publishing. “Blogging” and “Tweeting” seem to portray
a conversation between friends in a public forum rather than an article published for the
public eye and comment.

New media enables protest and criticism in many ways. Ms. Bonnen, who was unhappy with
the Horizon apartment block, probably felt that she was not being heard and nothing was
being done about her situation. Her ‘tweet’ was a way for her to express her concerns and in
doing so she raised other opinions and criticisms. “Tweeting” and “blogging” reaches a
greater mass of people than newspapers and radio stations and is therefore able to raise much
more awareness. This does not, however, prove truth or legitimacy in any way. We are
faced with the different sides to a story or debate but no solid proof is offered. The Horizon
group management say they filed a lawsuit against Ms. Bonnen for defaming the company
but since the lawsuit Ms. Bonnen has been “unavailable” for comment. This still leaves us
with the initial question of “who is the victim?” In return, this results in even more debate and
concern.

Similarly, You Tube showcases Dave Carroll’s story about his guitar which somebody broke
whilst flying with United Airlines. Some say he should not have received any grievances as
he was negligent to begin with while some are firmly on his side. Again, there is more than
just one side to the story but one has to ask : “How do these defamed individuals and compa-
nies become resilient again and what resources do they have?” One resource is clearly
evident in the apartment scenario where the management filed a lawsuit to gain justice.
Another resource is making a public apology or making a public statement promising
reimbursements of any losses or damages. An interesting resource is evident in Dave
Carroll’s story where there were many comments and justifications to the story which lead to
Dave being seen as the culprit instead of the victim. Once again ‘New Media’ is useful and
resourceful and even though is seen as the culprit at times, can also be victimized and left
unjustified.