Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press and offense are closely correlated terms . This is probably the most extensive debate that has been analyzed time and again throughout the history of humanity, from Ancient Greece to our modern times, where the dilemma remains.

Often a social group, a person or a legal entity denounces or is denounced for having expressed an opinion on a subject that concerns the parties concerned. In this sense, the offense is the one that results in the limit of freedom of expression and, consequently, it is very difficult to measure such lack in an objective way.

How is freedom of expression defined?

As we noted in the introduction to the article, freedom of expression is a controversial issue to analyze, and so is its very definition. Nevertheless, we will approach an interpretation that is as academic as possible.

Freedom of expression represents a civil or human right that all people, regardless of their religious, ethnic or physical condition, have the legitimate power to write, say and narrate whatever an opinion or thought may be . In this way, people are protected before the law to avoid previous pressures, instigations and/or censorship.

The origins of the debate

This concept has its origins in the mid-twentieth century, after the end of the Second World War, and was introduced in the Universal Charter of Human Rights of 1948, drafted by the United Nations (1945) and included in all the constitutions of today’s democratic states.

Freedom of expression is also enshrined in the freedom of the press , which is greatly harmed by being the universal medium where citizens are informed and called upon to inform.

However, freedom of expression is such an old claim since human beings organized themselves in societies where the priorities and concerns of these groups were discussed in a collective forum.

Limits and controversy with freedom of expression

Freedom of expression ends when the recipient is disturbed or harmed, according to communications experts. But, how to determine the offense or grievance of those affected? This is where the paradox of the term freedom lies.

On the other hand, the limits to freedom of expression are set by those who have the power of the channels of dissemination, influence or prestige such as multinational companies, governments and newspapers. According to a study revealed by ProPublica, censorship is often on the side of economic elites and legitimate governments.

In this sense, we can say that freedom of expression is more a tool than an ultimate right, since depending on some interests or others, one guideline or another will be applied as it happens in portals such as Facebook or Twitter.

We live in a world that is superbly communicated globally, where information is almost instantaneous, and transmissions are made live in voice and image. But even so, there are still cases of censorship or a filter is passed before the news is revealed .

In Spain, to give an example, political representatives have had to rectify, apologize or even resign, for having verbalized a thought that has offended the recipient, or his or her environment. In many cases, the law has even been applied retroactively.

The controversy, the order of the day

Let us remember Guillermo Zapata, a councillor in the Madrid City Council, was tried and sentenced for having made jokes about the victims of the Holocaust or about the physical disability of Irene Villa, all of which predated her time as a political figure. He was forced to rectify and was denied, due to public pressure, the position of Minister of Culture in the Madrid City Council.

Consequently, in order to determine the limits to freedom of expression, a measure has been proposed that analyses the intention and weight that the message may have. Consequently, a message, thought or narrative that incites to hatred or violence is considered to be a reason to curtail the freedom we have been given.

In order to understand it better, we will illustrate this idea by means of a specific case. It is not the same to say “all radical Muslims must be killed and eliminated without consideration” as, “all Muslims must be eliminated”. It is the term ‘radicals’ that makes the difference in this example, since it attacks a certain group and not a whole community.