The Misunderstanding of the Term Freedom of Speech

Freedom is something that has been dreamt, aspired, and fought for throughout the history of humanity. Freedom of speech however, is a right that has come to be considered until recent times. Before, the fight was about the freedom of will and action, later on, the human discovered that the expression of the thoughts, ideals and ideas of every individual should not be repressed or punished. People should be able to speak their minds and express whatever they think or feel about any subject without repercussions.

Even in modern society this is a non-existing right in several countries, repressing and penalizing those individuals or groups who’s ideas might jeopardize the image of the government or any group who suppresses the freedom of speech. Still there are several cases where the people no longer profess the freedom of speech with integrity and respect. Misunderstanding completely the core idea of this right, transforming it into a way to promote violence, hatred and intolerance.

In December 1st 2012, Enrique Peña Nieto—elected candidate to the presidency of Mexico— inaugurated his presidency. He is a love or hate public figure, in his case loved by the rich and powerful and hated by the working class. Hence, when he became president of Mexico, people went out of their homes into the main streets of Mexico City protesting that they did not and would not recognize him as legitimate president of the country, stating that Andrés Manuel López Obrador, running candidate for the socialist party, was the legitimate president.

The real issue was that people did not just go out and spoke their minds out loud; unfortunately they used physical violence in the attempt to make a statement, graffiting national monuments, destroying banks, restaurants and shops among other affected establishments located in the business district of Mexico City. Which is also the touristic area, therefore the image, not just of the city but of the country as well, was affected by these events, for countless tourists and business people witnessed it.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that the right thing to do is that which brings the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the biggest amount of individuals. If this theory were to be applied to the events occurred in Mexico City during December 1st 2012, it could be stated that the way in which the people used their freedom of speech was completely wrong. No happiness or pleasured was gained by anyone, for the way people decided to express was violent and aggressive, in response the police had to intervene in order to control the chaos on the street, starting a confrontation between police force and protesting people.

So in the end there was no happiness or pleasure experienced by anyone in this situation, not even considering the means to an end factor, the purpose of this revolutionary attempt was to overthrow Enrique Peña Nieto. That did not happen, instead the perception of tourists and business people towards the country ended up being very negative. Therefore following the rules of Utilitarianism this situation is completely wrong, great unhappiness was created for a very large amount of people, and in the end there was no happiness produced for any group of people (MacKinnon, 2012).

According to Kant’s Moral Theory; a deed has moral value when and if it is done with a good intention or purpose. If this case were to be analysed through Kant’s theory, it would be right until a certain point. People went out to protest, following their moral beliefs. In the beginning their motive was to be listened, to make clear that they did not recognize the elected president as legitimate. It all turned around in a negative outcome when they started using vandalism as a method to make a statement.

These acts were not made following their moral beliefs but by their own anger and frustration instead. Perhaps even acting against their own morality, following an unjustified desire to inflict violence to others in order to be herd. They stopped viewing the affected as individuals with rights, and instead used them as means to achieve their goal, even referring to this violence as collateral damage. Ignoring completely their moral obligation while acting merely in behalf of their motive. There is a complete lack of ethics and respect and according to Kant and his universal law it is completely unmoral.

Particularly considering that one of the main statements of this theory is to treat others as we want to be treated, loosing the right to be herd or even respected, for they did not respect or even stop to consider how much their deeds would hurt others and their rights (MacKinnon, 2012). It can be concluded that freedom of speech is a wonderful tool to be heard and taken in consideration if intelligently used. Unfortunately there are several people in the world who misinterpret the whole concept, adapting it into their own agenda.

Using the wrong methods to speak their minds and state their opinions and beliefs. Violence is not the way to be heard or noticed, if people are demanding to be respected and listened, mean to overthrow violence and corruption from a society. How could this ever happen if the means they are using in order to achieve these goals are violence, disrespect, intolerance and vandalism, the situation just turns into a vicious cycle, the people throw violence and the authorities have to respond with violence. It is a never-ending war; it is neither possible nor smart to fight fire with fire.

Society has to be conscious of the fact that violence is not way, using it only brings more violence, the best and most effective way to make others listen, is to speak out with intelligence. This way people might actually stop and listen to what an individual has to say, for the message would be provided with reasons of why it is right or wrong, making other individuals analyse and think about the message that has been delivered. That is the whole point of freedom of speech, to smartly speak up, the point is not to make people listen, but to make them think in order to make a change.