Itis often postulated that the first limitation to freedom of speech is freedom itself. What this entails is that there is a plethora of democratic, republican constitutions in the world that give the freedom of speech to their citizens, but restrict these freedoms to speech that does not harm or offend the public sentiment, incite violence ete, Such curtailments are a natural corollary to the freedom to speech, but the question is; should these restrictions exist? In an age of terrorism, where a human life’s value is depleting by the day and becoming a means for terrorists to get their message across, should we limit freedom of speech in order to restrict the likelihood of terrorism? The suceinct answer to this question is no, freedom of speech should not be restricted in the age of terrorism and hate speech. The reason freedom of speech need not be restricted is because limiting it would act as a slippery slope, allowing further curtailment and restrictions on other freedoms. Our freedom to move, our freedom to associate or protest ete. can all be jeopardized or clipped in order to reduce the likelihood of igniting terrorist or violent proclivities in people. In an age where collective human consciousness is rapidly evolving due to the onslaught of globalization, increased debate and awareness of different cultures and people, it is imperative not to restrict freedom of speech. This is a fundamental and basic human right which paves the way for other fundamental human rights. Curtailing it would enable legislators and governments to curtail other, related, human rights and thereby repress democracy itself. From the lens of the social contract theory propounded by John Locke, the ultimate sovereignty resides in the people. It is they who enter into the social contract to be governed by a state, in order for their human rights to be better protected and their liberties to be safeguarded (Mishra, 2012). If these liberties are endangered, the people have the right to rescind the social contract and create a new government. Such is the power vested in people and their views, which must be safeguarded at all costs. In essence, itis imperative to ensure that there are no limitations to one’s right to freedom of speech and expression, as this ean lead to the curtailment of other, related, basic human rights. Since the dawn of history, humans have longed for peace but have gone to war for a variety of reasons; politics, religion or discrimination, A sustained peace still remains elusive. But what is peace? What generates discontent and discord, tension and conflict among people and states that leads to war? When we talk of peace — we mean a state of existence which makes the life on earth worthy of human beings, a quality of life where people can grow and prosper, where people can live in peace and pursue a life free of hunger, want and disease, where children can pursue their studies without the crippling effect of fear, violence, war, malnutrition and an insecure future, For many, this peace can be secured within a tightly Knit cocoon compee= = 3*SeSS"RSSHIEB on the wordsessence, it is imperative to ensure that there are no limitations to one’s right to freedom of speech and expression, as this ean lead to the curtailment of other, related, basic human rights. EE EN EEE NEE EEE NII ES Since the dawn of history, humans have longed for peace but have gone to war for a variety of reasons; politics, religion or discrimination. A sustained peace still remains elusive. But what is peace? What generates discontent and discord, tension and conflict among people and states that leads to war? When we talk of peace ~ we mean a state of existence which makes the life on earth worthy of human beings, a quality of life where people can grow and prosper, where people can live in peace and pursue a life free of hunger, want and disease, where children can pursue their studies without the crippling effect of fear, violence, war, malnutrition and an insecure future. For many, this peace can be secured within a tightly knit cocoon composed of checks and balances on the words one spews or the caricatures one conjures or the satirical diatribe one pens. To such individuals one can only ask a simple question; will all forms of terrorist activity dissipate once freedom of expression is curtailed and routinely monitored? Will people simply stop taking up arms and going on killing sprees, or will people stop distorting religious teachings to fulfill their personal vendettas just because their sentiments are no longer being offended by an article ora cartoon? No. Intolerance, impatience, ethnocentrism, illiteracy, poverty, authoritarian regimes; these are just some of the factors that act as a breeding ground for violence and terrorism, When you put a ban on any speech that can be construed as “hate” speech, you are effectively paving the way for further intolerance and hatred. Curtailing art and culture that depicts the gods in a bad light or can give rise to discontent or agitation in society was propounded by Plato. He argued that it was only the learned and erudite Philosopher King who could view and enjoy art without being affected by it and could see art for what it really was, a remote, distinct entity, rather than allow it to affect his sensibilities and emotions. This shows that since time immemorial, art has been questioned and critiqued for its ability to stir human emotions negatively and cause disharmony in society. Many have called for it to be censored or monitored, and this has become acutely relevant in today’s day and age, where the Charlie Hebdo massacre was ignited due to religious sentiments of radicalized Islamists who viewed satirical drawings from Charlie Hebdo’s weekly magazine to run against the basic tenets of Islam. Instances when art or popular culture is called to be censored for depicting material that perturbs the religious sentiments of people is not new. In 2008, YouTube was banned in Pakistan and remained banned for many years due to a video made on Prophet Muhammad, which upset many Muslims and YouTube refused to take it off due to the user’s freedom of expression (Mishra, 2012). Since YouTube refused to take the video off, the Pakistani government decided to ban access to the website and there were numerous protests held in the country against the video. Another instance was in 2005, when Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published a series of satirical cartoonERGepebemaeeseterreing Prophetor monitored, and this has become acutely relevant in today’s day and age, where the Charlie Hebdo massacre was ignited due to religious sentiments of radicalized Islamists who viewed satirical drawings from Charlie Hebdo’s weekly magazine to run against the basic tenets of Islam. Instances when art or popular culture is called to be censored for depicting material that perturbs the religious sentiments of people is not new. In 2008, YouTube was banned in Pakistan and remained banned for many years due to a video made on Prophet Muhammad, which upset many Muslims and YouTube refused to take it off due to the user’s freedom of expression (Mishra, 2012). Since YouTube refused to take the video off, the Pakistani government decided to ban access to the website and there were numerous protests held in the country against the video. Another instance was in 2005, when Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published a series of satirical cartoons in September 2005 depicting Prophet Muhammad. This ignited a series of protests all around the world, which entailed attacks on Danish embassies and the embassies of other European countries as well as deaths amounting to more than 200 people (Chaudhry, 2009). Both these incidents highlight that having the freedom to express one’s self can border on hate speech for the affected community, who can take up violent means to voice their protest. The issue, however, is that what might be viewed as hate speech or inflammatory for one segment of the society might not be so for another. The 2005 Danish cartoon controversy or the 2008 YouTube video ban in Pakistan were incidents that flamed the sentiments of many Muslims, albeit not all Muslims, and could be construed as hate speech by a segment of such Muslims. However, there is no, and never has been, a universal consensus on what is or is not hate speech in a piece of art of literature. For instance, Salman Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’, caused fatwas to be issued against him by religious clerics in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, even from Khomeini who was Iran’s Supreme Leader. The book was not banned in any Western country, but continues to be banned in countries such as Iran and Pakistan, because it contains blasphemous content pertaining to Angel Gabriel and Prophet Muhammad, according to proponents of the ban. However, to ban Salman Rushdie’s book would be to trample on freedom of expression and the right for an individual to express himself in any way he deems fit. It would curtail art and literature and it is these two things that add beauty, depth and meaning to life. Moreover, there are millions of people around the world who do not view Salman Rushdie’s book as blasphemous, and vociferously uphold for its publication because it embodies freedom of a man’s expression. Interestingly, a pertinent quote to add here would be by Salman Rushdie himself, who once said “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist” (Chaudhry, 2009). Rushdie was right here, because freedom of expression would cease to be a freedom in and of itself, if it could be curtailed the moment it started to offend another person or hurt their sentiments. What could offend a person is ahighly subjective debate and varies from culture to culture, society to society and person to person. If society started trampling on the right to freedom of speech or expression based on it mn the sight to freedom of specch or ty wethe world who do not view Salman Rushdie’s book as blasphemous, and vociferously uphold for its publication because it embodies freedom of a man’s expression, Interestingly, a pertinent quote to add here would be by Salman Rushdie himself, who once said “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist” (Chaudhry, 2009). Rushdie was right here, because freedom of expression would cease to be a freedom in and of itself, if it could be curtailed the moment it started to offend another person or hurt their sentiments. What could offend a person is ahighly subjective debate and varies from culture to culture, society to society and person to person. If society started trampling on the right to freedom of speech or expression based on it offending someone or some segment of society, we would all be severely limited in our daily lives. The shows that we watch, such as Saturday Night Live or The Tonight Show or John Oliver’s show, would all have to be curt censored, or banned altogether, because they offended the sentiments of certain people. In a similar vein, the anti-Trump remarks making rounds in newspapers and popular media all over the world could be construed as hate speech against ‘Trump and be banned too. Again, what could or could not offend someone is a subjective experience and depiction, that varies from one person to another, and would lead to an extremely messy state of affairs if we started to clamp down on speech that offended someone or some people. or The English Bill of Rights 1689 was the first human rights document that enshrined an individual’s constitutionally- backed right to express himself freely, and continues to be in effect (Powers, 2011). A century later became 1789 The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was espoused during the French Revolution, in which one’s freedom of expression was adopted within Article 11 (Powers, 2011). Furthermore, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 holds that every individual has a right to express his opinion without having this expression hindered by interferences, as well as a right to seek or impart information as well as ideas via any media (Kersch, 2003). Article 19 of the Intemational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and, Peoples’ Rights as well as Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Kersch, 2003). Against the aforementioned backdrop, what becomes evident is that in the world of today, having the freedom to express ones self is a right grounded firmly within both international and local human rights law. From a philosophical perspective, the argument put forth by John Milton is that having the freedom to express one’s self is a multifaceted right, because it encompasses three distinct features; right to receive information and ideas, right to seek such information and ideas, as well as the right to impart such information and ideas (Wall, 2008). This implies that protecting an individual's freedom of speech as his right does not only includes the content, but also the means used to express himself (Wall, 2008). In this regard, there is a critical need to protect the media as it acts as a bearer of the general right of society itself to freely express iaialidRalasiibiaLdeSigee the time ofworld of today, having the freedom to express ones self is a right grounded firmly within both international and local human rights law. From a philosophical perspective, the argument put forth by John Milton is that having the freedom to express one’s self is a multifaceted right, because it encompasses three distinct features; right to receive information and ideas, right to seek such information and ideas, as well as the right to impart such information and ideas (Wall, 2008). This implies that protecting an individual’s freedom of speech as his right does not only includes the content, but also the means used to express himself (Wall, 2008). In this regard, there is a critical need to protect the media as it acts as a bearer of the general right of society itself to freely express itself (Palasinski, 2014). Since the time of the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, man has fought hard to secure his right to freedom of expression and it is important that this right is safeguarded and protected. The root causes of terrorism and the reasons for its spread or exacerbation will not be exterminated by curtailing the right to freedom of speech. In Pakistan, there are blasphemy laws in place that can result in the hanging, sentencing or lynching of a person based on their speech or actions that are construed as blasphemous. It is this sentiment and validation for such draconian laws that paved the way for the public lynching and murder of Mashal Khan on 13* April 2017 in Peshawar. Mashal was a student at Abdul Wali Khan University in Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and was killed by an angry crowd comprised of his fellow university students, due to ‘blasphemous’ content that he had uploaded online on Facebook. This content, when it later became public, was nothing more than poetry pertaining to nationalism. Such incidents reveal the utmost importance of not allowing, dogmatism and radicalism to win over a human being’s right to express himself, because clamping this right is a slippery slope that will keep tightening. Like a noose around an artist or a journalist or a human being’s neck, curtailing freedom of expression effectually means that terrorists get their s get to decide what is or is not hate speech or offensive. The death of an individual such as Mashal Khan should be a reminder to human beings everywhere about the importance of allowing people to freely and fully express themselves, because what is of offense to one person might be a source of creativity or inspiration or amusement to another. There is no objective lens or criteria that can be imposed in order to classify what is or is not going to hurt or offend a person. Many countries have curtailed the rights to freedom of expression or free speech once it starts to border on hate speech. They have also clipped the wings of freedom of expression based on contextualized notions that pertain to the sentiments of different countries. For instance, in Turkey, one cannot speak against Mustafa Kemal officially, for instance in a parliament, and religious inclinations of political parties are frowned upon, especially by the military. In Pakistan, freedom of expression is curtailed if it negatively impinges upon Islam. In France, following the Second World War, people cannot deny the Holocaust and this has been enshrined in the French do Miche 0) i ant:(Creativity OF inspiration Or ainusement to another. 1Here 1s NO objective lens or criteria that can be imposed in order to classify what is or is not going to hurt or offend a person. Many countries have curtailed the rights to freedom of expression or free speech once it starts to border on hate speech. They have also clipped the wings of freedom of expression based on contextualized notions that pertain to the sentiments of different countries. For instance, in Turkey, one cannot speak against Mustafa Kemal officially, for instance in a parliament, and religious inclinations of political parties are frowned upon, especially by the military. In Pakistan, freedom of expression is curtailed if it negatively impinges upon Islam. In France, following the Second World War, people cannot deny the Holocaust and this has been enshrined in the French laws (Mishra, 2012). Moreover, due to the increase in anti- Semitism in France, the French government has proactively aimed to reduce hate speech, such as curbing the speech of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a French comedian who used to engage in anti-Semitic routines (Mishra, 2012). Across the pond in the United States of America, freedom of expression is not absolute or unfettered because various limitations by aw have been imposed on speech that involves child pornography, obscenity, libel or incitement. A great many countries around the world have defamation laws that restrict people from slandering or maligning the character or reputation of another person without any excusable or just reason. What this shows is that when freedom of expression starts to border on hate speech or speech that runs contrary to values or norms set on a pedestal by the state in different countries, then it is restricted. Absolute, unfettered freedom of speech is rarely allowed legally in constitutions. That being said, allowing freedom of speech to be curtailed because it offends a particular segment of society would be troublesome because then freedom of speech would be reduced to an extremely small space. There is so much art and literature and blogs out there that would offend politicians, governments, religious clerics, or anybody else. If we start to curtail all of these, then it would prove to be extremely troublesome. It is inherently not easy to draw a line between speech that is dangerous and speech that is disgusting. In conclusion, it is imperative to uphold freedom of expression and the right to free speech, provided that it does not impinge upon the laws of a country. If we were to curtail to speech that offends people’s sentiments or a person’s religious or moral values, then art, media, popular culture, the work of journalists or reports, bloggers, comedians etc. would all be heavily censored. Satire is based on mocking people and poking fun at them or of them, but with no intent to cause personal injury or harm. Authoritarian regimes and dictators such as Vladimir Putin and Erdogan in Turkey have tried to trample upon the freedom of expression enjoyed by journalists. In communist regimes such as those in China, President Xi Jinping’s government heavily monitors the internet and restricts the freedom of expression of Chinese citizens. Such a repressive atmosphere paves the way for other freedoms enjoyed by humans to be curtailed, such as one’s freedom of association. What is deemed offensive to one party might not be so for another person, thus this is an extremely subjective, crey Stee eee eee tea: interpreted