The “inconvenient” right of Freedom of Speech

Do we have the right to say that one of the most important rights in a democracy may be “inconvenient”?The logical answer is no, and an unrestricted and unlimited right is the one that we really need for a truly and transparent democracy. But the facts are different from the idealist -and sometimes- utopian sense of Freedom of Speech. When freedom means lack of ethics and the Speech just biased words without transparent goals, there is a failure on the own nature of the principle. So, how we align freedom with guarantees? That’s the challenge, we need to make sure there is enough freedom to deliver information or even to express opinions or just thoughts, but there is also an imperative for avoiding fake news avoiding dark agendas and private interests.

Julian Assange is an example that is not only about freedom or the search for the truth but the opportunity and the need to make a public and open debate within guarantees for all. The fact that the altruist goals of Assange ends on the disclosure of Hillary Clinton´s emails during electoral campaign (March, 2016) was a clear example that there is an agenda behind the simple “search for the truth”. Also the fact that he threats to release new information as a way to manipulate his uncertain situation is a way to see that is not Free Media that is under threat by his indictment, but his own personal goals.

A journalist searching for the truth or a hacker with a “controlled demolition” under a very careful –and hidden- agenda more a matter of other interests rather than delivering valuable information?

So, free Media its about a fair, professional and organized right of Freedom of Speech, not a manipulative source that tend to benefit one or others, or even worse for personal success. Once the journalist or any citizen has valuable information that involves tragic consequences in terms of political stability it should be handle with extreme care and not feeling ownership of it.

That is one of the main messages of this article: there is no ownership of the information, just a channel to make the society being informed or/and take decisions based on transparency .

The pillar for a truly citizens engagement is a powerful although open Media that contributes to transparency but making of the political stage a earnest business, not an stage of entertainment and biased agendas.

Not everything goes under the big umbrella of Freedom of Speech, its also about respect to personal dignity as well to be faithful to global mechanisms that contribute to deliver accountability and transparency thorough legal channels. Launched a message without a Justice system, legal framework or/and authorization from their actors is it just not information but irresponsible manipulation. In the end, not vindicating the power of Free Speech but being slaves of the will of a few ones.

For getting to truly transparent systems we must do more than release information, we need to develop an active, practical and tangible ethical standard´s system for a reliable, transparent and accountable Media. Is not just about delivering news, but being responsible of the reliability of the message.

As the sculpture, information is too much valuable to keep it on the floor of a rusty and mediocrity standards but on the top within high goals enough inclusive and transparent. Making of information a tool that empowers citizens, not journalists. Dignifying the right for a Free Press and Speech as powerful sources that boost global stability, not a source that gives power to specific groups. That its just about freedom….



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s