Exaggeration, misrepresentation, sensationalism and over portrayal at date have turned a common commodity to draw in greater audience. It is noticed an individual goes limitless whilst affixing limits to others in the quest to champion freedom of expression. The way one leads one’s life, practice religion and chase a dream, devoid of inflicting harms to others falls in the jurisdiction of multitude of rights. This is the realm of authority one should exercise influence that bares others’ interference. The assurance of safeguards to a right safeguards peace and order in the society; otherwise conflict ensues.
Free speech deliberates free expression of one’s opinion without any restraints. The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). One should mind this freedom should not go wild analogous to an unchained mare. Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech can be related to libel, sedition, hate speech, incitement, right to privacy, public security, public order, public nuisance and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not. There is multiple incidence of exploitation of right to free speech that had earned serious backlash from intolerant adherents of religion being harmed by such stance.
Earlier, three masked gunmen attacked and killed the editorial staff of a weekly satirical journal Charlie Hebdo in Paris which ridiculed Judaism, Catholicism and Islam. The reason behind the daylight massacre was the publication of highly provocative cartoons published, which had offended Muslims. Following the reprehensible attack other major Western publications instigated to republish the same offensive cartoons that Charlie Hebdo had carried, ostensibly in a bid to show solidarity with the magazine. One wonders whether this is the right way to show solidarity and condemn these attacks. Along with this unnecessary brutality, the likely backlash against the Muslim population of the West in response made the perpetrators doubly guilty.
Formerly, Pamela Gellar a controversial champion of free speech went on organizing the contest for drawing Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) cartoons in Garland, Texas that was duly attacked by ISIS terrorists. This is a deliberate display of Islamophobia, a section of people in the West has been denying of being behind such provocative deed, are beleaguering the truth. But it is equally clear that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. Contrarily, it was not Pamela Geller, first ever incident; in fact she has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims. It was an exercise in narrow-mindedness and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
We should learn it, contrary to degree of freedom one enjoys in western democracy, it should be considered that speech offensive to a religion, society, special interest groups or individuals should not go viral. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws. It crucially significant, however offensive the images were, it never justifies murder instead can serve only to worsen tensions and furnish the ground for extremists brutal acts.
The Muslims all over the world, including those who live in the US and Europe, do not subscribe to the ideology of the IS. Factually, they themselves have rendered vulnerable to the attacks of the terrorist groups, given they shun such interpretation of Islamic teachings. Hence, in many Muslim countries undergoing bloody conflict the pacified Muslims render the prey of extremist Muslims is blameworthy.
The countless innocent killed did not quench the blood thirst of these self claimed champions and sane Muslim; Al-Qaida, ISIS and Taliban whose bloody tale of mass massacre, outpatient the humanists across glob. The Muslim world should come to a conclusion to disown and alienate these evil practioners, manipulating the sacred religion for personal gains, adding than deducing the miseries of Muslim.
Muslims undergo grave suspicion since 9/11. Many innocent Muslims have already paid a heavy price for this suspicion and more would do the same if the extremist fellow champion to be sole representative of Muslim community. What is centrally important, one should understand drawing a distinctive line between free speech and hate speech; the former supports an individual’s right to speak his mind uninterrupted whilst the later propagates hatred under the cover free speech in the bid to offend well held religious or otherwise values. We should learn it; the hate speech is equally condemnable to that of atrocious retaliation by extremist.