Does freedom of expression have limits?

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

Often a social group, a person or a legal entity denounces or is denounced for having expressed an opinion regarding an issue that concerns the affected parties. In this sense, the offense is the result in the limit of freedom of expression and, consequently, it is very difficult to measure said deficiency objectively.

How is freedom of expression defined?

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

Freedom of expression represents a civil or human right that all people, regardless of their religious, ethnic or physical condition,

have the legitimate power to write, say and narrate whatever an opinion or thought. In this way, people are protected before the law to avoid pressure, instigation and/or prior censorship.

The origins of the debate

This concept has its origins in the mid-twentieth century, after the end of World War II, and was introduced in the Universal Charter of Human Rights of the year 1948, drafted by the United Nations (1945) and included in all the constitutions of the Democratic States current.

Freedom of expression is also enshrined in freedom of the press, which is the great loser as it is the universal medium where citizens are informed and called to inform.

However, freedom of expression is a claim so old since human beings organized in societies where the priorities and concerns of these groups are debated in a collective forum.

Limits and controversy with freedom of expression

Freedom of expression ends when the addressee is disturbed or harmed, according to communication experts. But, How to determine the offense or grievance of those affected? This is where the paradox of the term freedom resides.

On the other hand, the limits to freedom of expression are established by those who have the powers of channels of diffusion, influence or prestige such as multinational companies, governments and newspapers. According to a study revealed by ProPublica, censorship is often 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 in Depending on one interest or another, one guideline or another will be applied, as happens in portals such as Facebook or Twitter.

We live in a world that is highly communicated globally, where information is practically instantaneous, broadcasts are carried out live in voice and image. But still, cases of censorship continue to occur or a filter is passed before revealing the news.

In Spain, to give an example, political representatives have had to rectify, apologize or even resign, for having verbalized a thought that has offended the recipient, or those around them. In many cases, the law has even been applied retroactively.

Controversy, the order of the day

Let us remember Guillermo Zapata, councilor in the Madrid City Council, 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 her stage as a political figure. He had to rectify and was denied, due to public pressure, the position of Minister of Culture in the Madrid City Council.

Consequently, 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. Therefore, it is considered that a message, thought or narrative that incites hatred or violence is a reason to curtail that freedom that has been given to us.

In order to understand it better, we will illustrate this idea through a specific case. It is not the same to say "all radical Muslims must be killed and eliminated without contemplation" than "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.