OpinionsEnglish Edition

The Waning Frontiers of Free Expression?

Rakibul Islam

•June 19, 2023•6 min read

Whenever whistleblowers of the ilk of Julian Assange or Edward Snowden have sought to unmask the information hegemony of the US-NATO apparatus, they have invariably been met with the full force of punitive state machinery. Such calculated suppression prompts a sobering inquiry: is the foundational liberty of free expression undergoing a systematic contraction?

Standing at this juncture of the twenty-first century, we find ourselves confronted with experiences that compel a constant reassessment: is freedom of expression truly undergoing a contraction? The phenomena we witness, consume, and endure today would have been unimaginable even a century—or perhaps even a decade—ago. While the limits of imagination are contingent upon various factors, the reality of the unimaginable is undeniable. Today, as we join the chorus celebrating ChatGPT, we are simultaneously struck by its rapid fall from grace, exemplified by Italy’s formal ban of the platform. But why? The global adulation for ChatGPT seems to have withered in an instant, replaced by accusations of its unchecked hegemony. Is this truly the case? Furthermore, has anyone ever sought to bridle the long-standing information imperialism practiced by the United States and NATO? Or, indeed, has anyone even dared to consider it? On the contrary, whenever public-interest crusaders like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden have attempted to tear the mask off this information terrorism, they have been met with the sharp edge of a sword. Such contradictions invite a haunting question: is freedom of expression shrinking, or has restriction become the very policy of expression itself?

What is Freedom of Expression?

Before determining if Freedom of Expression is under siege, we must first define what it entails. Lexically, a "view" denotes an opinion, a psychological disposition, a concept, or a conviction. In English, the term encompasses nuances such as opinion, viewpoint, remark, thought, idea, sentiment, belief, and faith. According to the ninth edition of the Oxford Dictionary, an opinion is a person’s feeling, thought, or concept regarding a subject or individual—distinct from objective reality. It is a subjective manifestation. It does not necessarily adhere to empirical truth; indeed, it may encompass falsehoods or distortions of reality. Expression, therefore, is the act of externalizing these internal thoughts, sentiments, and attitudes through any medium—be it poetry, prose, drama, cinema, or caricature. Until such a state of expression is reached, one’s private thoughts remain internal, unestablished as a public "view."

Freedom of Expression and its Boundaries

Yet, the most vital prerequisite for holding an opinion or exercising freedom of expression is the actual guarantee of that freedom. If your head of state echoes the sentiments of Robert Mugabe—asserting that freedom of expression exists, but offering no guarantees as to what happens *after* that expression—then you are living in the domain of Mugabe’s ideological kin. We have observed this tragedy in the cases of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Jamal Khashoggi, and the Sagar-Runi murders. One may express an opinion, but if the "liberty" afforded to you results in an premature departure from this life, then, by any definition, freedom of expression has ceased to exist.

Is Freedom of Expression Shrinking?

Every individual, from the commoner to the elite, possesses the Right—a Constitutional Right—to speak and to express themselves. While it may appear that this right is protected, the twenty-first century has witnessed governments and states assuming the role of its primary executor. Bans on speech, prohibitions on assembly, the censorship of political cartoons—this has become a global practice. And yet, freedom of expression remains the bedrock of democracy.

The erosion of Freedom of Expression on a global scale is easily illustrated. For years, accusations have mounted that there is no freedom of expression in Bangladesh, where speaking out can lead to abduction or murder. Thousands of cases have been filed under the Digital Security Act. Critics argue that voters are disenfranchised and democracy has withered. These claims are echoed by opposition parties and, more recently, by the United States, the European Union, and their allies. The U.S. has even issued a new visa policy threatening sanctions against those responsible for tampering with elections in Bangladesh. Past history suggests that when the U.S. and the EU intervene, the consequences are seldom benign. Meanwhile, the Bangladeshi government and its ally, India, vehemently reject these claims, supported by China and Russia.

How far Freedom of Expression is appropriate?

The irony is striking: the U.S. and the EU exert pressure on the Bangladeshi government to "restore democracy," even as they have left Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen in ruins and are now entrenched in the conflict against Russia in Ukraine. Nations that have refused to fall in line with their stance on the war face sanctions, frozen assets, and economic punitive measures. The West exerts tight control over the dissemination of information regarding the Ukraine war across both digital and analog platforms. Those who refuse to toe the line face deplatforming or the de-monetization of their content by entities like Google. This is not limited to the Ukraine issue. Across the West, the enforcement of "woke culture" creates a climate where dissent is strictly prohibited. So-called "liberals" may declare whatever they please—a man may identify as a woman, or a convicted murderer may claim the identity of a five-year-old child—but to criticize these bizarre assertions is to invite charges of "hate speech." It goes beyond discourse; this ideology is enforced as mandatory compliance, leading to the exclusion of those who refuse to conform. Conversely, the narrative of the Bangladesh government and its allies—India, China, and Russia—is equally curious. They dismiss these complaints as groundless, citing the existence of ample freedom. This narrative is bolstered by state-sponsored "cyber teams." They claim that the U.S. and EU are practicing imperialist aggression against Bangladesh. Yet, these same teams ignore India’s intervention, framing it as "friendly." There were allegations, for instance, that in the 2018 election, Indian Ambassador Sujata Singh requested opposition leader Hussain Muhammad Ershad to participate. One must not forget that Bangladesh, as a neighbor, has seen the fate of Sikkim firsthand. It seems that "imperialism" is merely a label one uses for the interventions of one’s adversaries, while the interventions of one’s friends are termed "friendship."

What is the Gender Pay Gap? Does it really exist?

In the digital sphere, Donald Trump and Andrew Tate were banned from Twitter for expressing dissenting views, though policies shifted after Elon Musk’s acquisition. Facebook’s record is similarly checkered; during the 2017 Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, the platform censored information and refused to provide evidence to the International Court of Justice for the case involving The Gambia. More recently, the BBC chose not to broadcast the opening ceremony of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar. It appears that, for many, the ultimate expression of "freedom" has become the power to suppress the freedom of others.

Rakibul Islam

Author & Contributor, MaroonPaper

Contributing insightful research and analytical essays on law, politics, history, and international affairs for MaroonPaper.