Vishruth Week 12: Free Speech
One of the United States’ Constitutional tenets is freedom of speech—the right to “articulate opinions and ideas” without “fear of governmental retaliation or censorship.” In fact, freedom of speech is written into the nation’s very first amendment. We benefit from this piece of legislation every single day whether it's debating political ideologies with our friends or even writing blogs like this one. But we often struggle to appreciate how privileged we really are: billions must keep their emotions and feelings locked within themselves to avoid a death sentence.
Take North Korea, for example. Out of its 26 million inhabitants, only 1 enjoys the right of free speech—Kim Jong Un. If anyone else even questions his authority, they are sentenced to life in prison, which, in North Korea, is equivalent to endless torture. The country has 1.3 million active personnel who enforce the autocratic rules. That’s right behind the US, which is at 1.4 million, but the critical difference is North Korea’s army comprises 5% of its entire population.
Now, you may be wondering, what’s the need to put so much effort into restricting speech in the first place. Well, free speech can be extremely dangerous for a dictatorship. Free speech enables opposing political ideologies to spread like wildfire and as a result, people can form more organized groups that have a legitimate chance of overthrowing rule. A strong example is the 1917 Russian Revolution during which the Bolshevik Party—one of the many factions plotting against the throne—killed Tsar Nicholas II and took power. The primary reason the Bolshevik Party was able to become so powerful was because they could communicate with each other (even though it was in secret). If the Russians were given free speech, the Bolsheviks would have taken over much sooner, because they could have built more communist sentiment and planned an attack in greater detail. Much of the same fears loom in North Korea, and that's why Kim Jong Un cannot take any chances.
Free speech is by no means a bad thing. Actually, it’s a crucial component of any functional democracy. The United States has evolved into the country it is today, because of the unique opinions and perspectives of its citizens. Free speech enables people to bring issues to public light. The Civil Rights and LGBTQ movements enabled public protests, which are another form of free speech. If anything, free speech should be protected at all costs: at no point in time should people feel their voices being taken away from them.
Take North Korea, for example. Out of its 26 million inhabitants, only 1 enjoys the right of free speech—Kim Jong Un. If anyone else even questions his authority, they are sentenced to life in prison, which, in North Korea, is equivalent to endless torture. The country has 1.3 million active personnel who enforce the autocratic rules. That’s right behind the US, which is at 1.4 million, but the critical difference is North Korea’s army comprises 5% of its entire population.
Now, you may be wondering, what’s the need to put so much effort into restricting speech in the first place. Well, free speech can be extremely dangerous for a dictatorship. Free speech enables opposing political ideologies to spread like wildfire and as a result, people can form more organized groups that have a legitimate chance of overthrowing rule. A strong example is the 1917 Russian Revolution during which the Bolshevik Party—one of the many factions plotting against the throne—killed Tsar Nicholas II and took power. The primary reason the Bolshevik Party was able to become so powerful was because they could communicate with each other (even though it was in secret). If the Russians were given free speech, the Bolsheviks would have taken over much sooner, because they could have built more communist sentiment and planned an attack in greater detail. Much of the same fears loom in North Korea, and that's why Kim Jong Un cannot take any chances.
Free speech is by no means a bad thing. Actually, it’s a crucial component of any functional democracy. The United States has evolved into the country it is today, because of the unique opinions and perspectives of its citizens. Free speech enables people to bring issues to public light. The Civil Rights and LGBTQ movements enabled public protests, which are another form of free speech. If anything, free speech should be protected at all costs: at no point in time should people feel their voices being taken away from them.
Hi Vishruth,
ReplyDeleteI found your blog post this week to be especially interesting as you explained how the power of freedom of speech has both a negative and positive impact. Firstly you mentioned how the freedom of speech can enable "opposing political ideologies to spread like wildfire and as a result, people can form more organized groups that have a legitimate chance of overthrowing rule." With the example of the Bolshevik Party you revealed how if free speech were initially granted to the russian there would have been greater havoc wreaked in comparison to the destruction that has already occurred. Then delving into its positive aspect, you stated how free speech is actually a "crucial component of any functional democracy" explaining how the United States wouldn't be where it is now without the development and contributions that free speech has ultimately prompted. By including movements like the Civil Rights and LGBTQ you were able to provide much evidence to both sides of the story. I think by explaining different views and perceptions, readers like myself can much more easily interpret the various effects and influences that freedom of speech can have. Overall, I thought that your blog was entertaining, educational, and extremely well-written. Thank you for sharing.
Hi Vishruth! Your blog on freedom of speech is very thought-provoking and timely, shedding light on the importance of this constitutional right in the United States and contrasting it with the stark reality faced by individuals living under oppressive regimes like North Korea. You effectively begin your blog by grounding the reader in the concept of freedom of speech as a constitutional right and its significance in American society. This draws the reader in and sets the stage for the discussion to follow. Your use of North Korea as a contrasting example to illustrate the absence of freedom of speech is powerful. By highlighting the extreme consequences faced by individuals who dare to voice dissent in such regimes, you effectively emphasize the value of free speech in democratic societies. While your blog effectively highlights the significance of freedom of speech, you could further enhance it by exploring potential limitations and challenges to this right in democratic societies. For instance, the rise of online censorship and the spread of misinformation pose complex challenges to the preservation of free speech in the digital age. Overall, your blog offers valuable insights into the importance of freedom of speech and its role in shaping democratic societies and I enjoyed reading your blog!
ReplyDeleteThis was an intriguing and thought-provoking piece about the power of free speech, which—as you cover in your piece—can do both harm and good. I liked how you structured your essay, starting by contrasting a familiar tenant of American life with the unfortunate reality of others. You follow this with a rather extreme example, North Korea, that—through its extremity—does an excellent job of revealing some of the circumstances in places that suppress free speech. From there, you smoothly transition to explaining the importance of free speech, using another notable example of an extreme to show just how powerful it can be.
ReplyDeleteAS you mention, I imagine that all of us here—myself included—desire to protect our rights to free speech. It's worth inspecting, then, how suppression of free speech can be perpetuated even without overtly authoritarian laws in dictatorships, in countries that claim to so cherish free speech, such as America itself. Turning to a familiar example, during the period of McCarthyism, people were compelled to silence about the absurdity of the whole affair not by explicit laws restricting their speech, but through the implicit threat of losing their jobs and reputations. Being aware of these kinds of cases can help us better defend our rights and ensure that no one "[feels] their voices being taken away by them."