Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. What does Article 19 states in relation with upholding our rights to own our opinions? Article 19 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through various publishing mediums. The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.
Free Speech as a Norm in International Law:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 in the wake of the holocaust, expressed a commitment by the world to promote and observe a full suite of fundamental human rights. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This protects expression in all forms, including spoken, written and sign language, and non-verbal expressions through artworks. Without free speech, the enjoyment of other rights is not possible. However, free speech is not an absolute right and can be limited where it is necessary and done in a proportionate manner. By reason of those parameters, defamation and hate speech laws can be justifiable as protecting the reputation and rights of others, so long as they are not overbroad. Transparency and accountability for human rights abuses are enhanced by freedom of expression, making it an essential precondition to ensuring the proper protection of rights.
Concrete action needed to end discriminatory violations of free expression:
ARTICLE 19 stands in solidarity with protestors in the US who are demanding justice for police brutality and an end to institutional racism. Freedom of expression is at its core about ensuring the right of individuals to speak out against oppression, government abuse and discrimination, and express and share their ideas and perspectives to improve our individual lives, communities and societies. The right to protest and speak out against racism and abuses by authorities is central to the right to free expression. The response of many US authorities to people’s exercise of their constitutional and human rights has been deeply disturbing and discriminatory. They represent abuses against basic human rights, and those responsible for implementing violence against protestors must be held accountable. It is time for the government to listen to and engage with the demands of protestors. While some authorities have begun to take action, they must maintain momentum for concrete solutions to address and eradicate racism and police brutality in the US.
Lack of Transparency in Policing:
During the protests, several reports have documented the police covering their badges and identification, in violation of their own departmental policies, and many of the federal forces in Washington DC refused to identify themselves. These actions have made it extremely difficult to identify officers that have engaged in acts of violence against journalists and protestors. In the US, there is a systemic lack of transparency in policing. This suppression of information is part of the infrastructure that enables the very policy brutality that is currently being protested. As representatives of the State, police must observe legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability in all actions that impact human rights, according to international standards.
Use of surveillance technologies during protests:
The militarisation and expansive funding of US police departments have facilitated their acquisition of a staggering array of surveillance tools which is again a further cause of concern. Several federal agencies have been caught operating cell-site simulators, which mimic cell towers to collect call, text, and browsing data from mobile phones. The indiscriminate use of these technologies during protests undermines the anonymity of protestors and is a violation of the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, as it is likely to discourage some from exercising their rights, and means those protesting risk being profiled, misidentified or targeted with criminal sanctions for participating in protests. ARTICLE 19 calls on US authorities to take immediate action to:
Protect the safety of journalists covering protests.
End the use of excessive force against protestors and impunity for these violations, open a Congressional investigation into police use of excessive force, and amend laws restricting the right to protest.
Investigate and act to end police brutality and institutional racism in the US.
End the use of surveillance technologies to police protests.
Police Brutality in India and US: Faizan and George Floyd:
George Floyd was a Black American and Faizan was a Muslim minority. Both were unarmed, and both were killed, at the hands of the men who swore to protect them. However, while the US flared up in protests and the guilty police officer was charged with murder, in India, apart from the “quick-to-fade” moments on social media, there was no visible public outcry, and the guilty officers walked free after a fruitless departmental inquiry. The debate and outrage over police misconduct in the United States of late, in the case of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd captured the attention of the world. Such brutality is in most cases, seen against the poor minority and marginalized communities of society. Half of all Indian police officers believe that Muslims have an instinctual tendency to commit crimes. These prejudices also extend to Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes, Adivasis, Dalits, and Transgender people.
Conclusion:
Summing up, we can say that the public should no longer turn a blind eye to this kind of violence and brutality. Let us all raise our voices, in print or in person, to wipe off these gruesome injustices amidst us and build a better tomorrow. Even in western democracies, laws are curtailing protest activities and threatening press freedom and free speech through mandatory metadata retention schemes. It is imperative that civil societies across the globe are vigilant in defending freedom of expression. This is necessary for the enhancement of people’s lives and the creation and maintenance of strong, health democratic societies.
Comentarios