Ethical Concerns and Freedom of Speech
Ethical concerns are the standards governing freedom of speech which, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which means the freedom to hold his or her opinion without interference and to seek the same through the media despite borders." However, this was not universal, since it is thought or presumed that certain nations or societies are more likely to do something and to talk honestly than others. For example, it is assumed that Americans appreciate free speech, allowing them to translate more ideas within themselves, thereby enhancing their wealth relative to other types of society or culture. (Mill's) With that in mind, ethics have it that in pursuant to freedom of speech, the idea of limitation of freedom of expression cannot be refuted as its moral obligation has to be considered. This leads one to wonder, where do we draw the lines?
Limitations of Freedom of Speech and Devastating Consequences
Despite there being no clear lines of ethical contexts limiting freedom of speech, these rights have greatly been limited and the consequences are devastating. They are experienced literally in almost every aspect of life ranging from media, public, schools, and the workplace.
Laws and the Limitation of Freedom of Expression
Most, if not all, governments have come up with laws in regards to freedom of expression, of which, according to Mills, must be enjoyed in totality regardless of the consequences. That is if we have full freedom of speech, we are in a position to express ourselves and argue out to our logical limits, thus enhancing our dignity. But by limiting our freedom, they lower our integrity as it is a kind of intellectual pacification that kills moral courage in human kind. (Mill) However, this has not stopped governments from introducing limits which are thought to be morally right in preventing harm to others (Broun).
Limitations of Freedom of Speech in Higher Learning Institutions
Apart from governments and the general public, these limitations of freedom of speech have been extended to our institutions of higher learning. Today, colleges and universities in the U.S. have restricted freedom of expression citing safety and providing an enabling environment for studies. While this is perfectly logical and rational as students must feel secure in their quest to attaining knowledge, it should not be taken as an assurance of realizing this goal as most institutions have been found guilty of taking advantage of such limitations to come up with oppressing rules and laws as well as poor quality services to students. Such conditions are unpopular to students as they make them uncomfortable, hence feeling unsafe. This would then force them to engage the government or other relevant authorities to have their issues addressed by the school administration. (Mill) Speech is not about pleasing someone but rather, free speech is of such great value that goes beyond rules. If the utilitarian could see the importance of free speech, it leaves one wondering what makes it difficult for administrators in the U.S education system to see it. It is, therefore, important that we ought not to provide conflicting ideologies so as to avoid getting ourselves in some complications.
Limitations of Freedom of Speech in the Workplace
Furthermore, freedom of speech at our places of work is equally restricted; however, limiting freedom speech at this point is not necessarily ethically wrong due to the need for professionalism as well as creation and maintenance of a conducive environment for the business. The issue here begins when the speech you make at your home or anywhere else gets to your place of work. This could be through social media where some employers monitor their employees. When such values as political party affiliation or religious beliefs are not shared, your right to freedom of speech is most likely not going to be respected. Such liberty may not be given at the workplace as some employees could feel that your freedom of speech and expression of ideas could prove dangerous by causing divisions in the team. But going by William James' pragmatism, employees should not be judged or be victimized simply because they said something divisive or contrary to their employer. Instead, they should assess the impact, that is, did the speech result in something positive or negative to the company. At this point, therefore, free speech which does not have any negativity is permissible, whereas a speech which damages the reputation of the company regardless of it being ideally or morally right should not be endorsed. (William)
Embracing Diversity and Freedom of Speech in Businesses
Businesses may differ in the way they conduct their activities, having different ideologies, mission, and vision, but the question is to what extent should the prevailing differences be acted upon? However, despite the standoff, many corporations are engaging in team building appreciating their employees' diversity and getting them to identify with each other. Some businesses are even going a notch higher encouraging their employees to express their freedom of speech without fear of intimidation.
Importance of Voicing One's Opinion in Contemporary Society
It is, therefore, imperative that voicing one's opinion or speaking out your mind is paramount in fighting for rights and freedoms that are under attack in the contemporary society.
Works Cited
Broun, Rebecca L. "The Harm Principle and Free Speech." Bepress Legal Repository (2016): 89-110.
Mill, John. On Liberty. UK: Penguin Books, 2010.
William, James. Pragmatism and Other Writings. New York: Penguin, 2000.
