Communication Rights to all People

As a member of a society, one would be expected to know, understand and exercise their rights when necessary. Therefore, a government, founded upon a self-governance theory would be formed to protect the rights of all people in their jurisdiction. This government would be one that is just and democratic to all people would then need to be active as a form of accountability to the people. Specifically, if laws are to protect all people, then laws governing communication must protect not just a majority, but also a minority opinion. Therefore, laws governing communication should primarily protect individual civil liberty even if asserted against the group majority. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives validity to this statement as is states that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” This is of vital importance because progress, individual liberty and freedom and a just democratic society will then be exercised for the good of the people. Progress will occur due to the flow of new and improved ideas. An individual will then be more freely open-minded about their religious or non-religious and cultural/non-cultural expression(s). Therefore, allowing their neighbor to do the same, which will then create a community of not just tolerance, but respect and a welcoming spirit of ideas.

To continue, the Greek Areopagitica story of law presents an ideal example of freedom of speech were citizens must be actively involved in their civil liberties, especially when elements of conflicting opinions arise. This story is important to a foundation of government due to its availability for discourse. All of the parties involved in this story were able to have representatives who argued for their case. Inclusively, those who were under persecution were able to have the floor and argue for their own interests and protections for a just, fair, due process in court. This will be an important aspect of free speech to keep in mind when controversial religious speakers are presented later in this essay. Individual liberty and freedom will occur in accordance to progress because when one neighbor exercises tolerance and respect for their neighbor, and these feelings are supported and acknowledged by the government, then “fear of the other,” will be very much decreased. This is because each person will then be living their life to their own morals and standards and letting the other do the same. A just democratic society will then be the umbrella to progress and individual liberty and freedom as laws and the judicial system will be created and exercised as a form of protecting these rights. In accordance to any country that identifies as democratic, it will not be perfect but it will have a strong foundation to support a just democratic society.

In relation to the case of the speakers in “Ecce Homo,” satirizing Jesus and in the artists in Jyllands-Posten satirizing Muhammed, based on my representation of law above; I would therefore protect the artists. Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin and Kurt Westergaard would be protected even though they are considered a minority to a group majority opinion. As cited above, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects these speakers, as they are simply, yet quite controversially exercising their freedom of thought. Following Article 18, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acts as support to these speakers as this right is elongated to “include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Therefore the form in which this information was dispersed, via newspapers, online, and visually in places of gatherings is protected. My decision is based on the foundation to a just democratic nation. I would then protect anyone or any group of people who supported these artists – either vocally, in print, in tangible showcases, or any other form that represents communicative support for these artists. Equally, I would protect those who do not support these artists as their right to individual freedom and liberty.
On a personal note, as a practicing Mexican-Catholic, I would not find the visual representations of Ecce Homo,” offensive, and would therefore not protest to these publications even if they would be cited offensive by leaders of my religious beliefs. Members of my family identify themselves as proud members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, and we do not use our Theo-centric origins and beliefs to discriminate and much less hate our family members. We embrace and love our family members in the spirit that was cited by those in the LGBT community -supporting the images as representation of an all-loving God. Inclusively, a mentality to love all people as we love ourselves and love and appreciate and accept our family for who they are in a holistic manner while also respecting and providing validity their individuality – not solely based on each individual’s sexual orientation (s).

In conclusion, these protections, which could include violent protests, as was seen in the case of Kurt Westergaard, would not be tolerated. Such violent protests would not be an acceptable form of individual liberty and freedom. The artists behind the work did not express themselves through violence (and if so, it would not be tolerated), so it would be expected that the intended or non-intended audience would do the same. A governing society cannot express a bias towards a representation of established faiths by siding with the artists or the protesters when it comes to non-violent expression. A governing society – a just and democratic one must therefore respect and lawfully protect the individual liberty and freedom by respecting the non-violent expressions of artists, supporters and protesters.