Do not get carried away by the misleading propaganda about individual freedom, which sounds through the usual channels of leading societies, pointing out that we are now almost at the top or at least that it has reached unimaginable heights. Real freedom, which is not freedom as a right, has always been such a rare and persecuted good that it has only been able to subsist occasionally in the thought of each one, while the possibility of externalizing it has been another story. Despite appearances, today, in the times of the rule of freedom as a right, the secular trend that has always affected real freedom has not been broken. Descending from the purely speculative to the realm of existence, as soon as the matter is examined in the light of the circulating news, individual freedom does not look good.
In civil society there are too many limits that are difficult to overcome, although surmountable, that tie to tradition, conventions and link with culture, so that at the level of expression it is difficult to avoid their influence. In the case of the market, it could be said that freedom subsists, forming the basis of expression to show preferences and externalize them, but the effects of advertising and fashions cannot be ignored. At the political level, freedom consists of moving within the system, abiding by the government's provisions, on which the pressure exerted through official propaganda is evident. As soon as the established channels are abandoned, there is gag and grief. The situation could be summarized by saying that freedom, fundamentally that of expression,In its practical sense it boils down to think what you want, but remember that, in most occurrences, you will find that you are not free to express yourself. Even some censor, using emotional devices, will reach the confines of your thought to, in the most harmless of assumptions, impose order or, from intolerance, beliefs. If this is so, it is not difficult to suppose what will happen to the public space of individual rights and, even more, in the realm. However, listening to the optimists on this point, confusing political freedom with real freedom and invoking article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it could be understood that freedom of expression exists as a human right and in view of the Constitutions is it is a political right.Perhaps it is, although it would be convenient to observe under what conditions it develops in order to qualify it as freedom.
Although the right to freedom of expression is a determining factor in any open society, its personalized purposes can lead to intolerance, blocking the way of the same right of expression of others. It must be taken into account that, considered from the level of rationality, no right is unlimited, therefore, the problem arises when it collides with other constitutional rights and the exercise of the right faces rights. As it is not an absolute right, it must be determined in the event of a collision to what degree it should prevail. So justice deals with doing it with the pretense of achieving social balance. The problem is that if with the determination of what is fair, which corresponds to a minority that holds the exclusivity of justice, the balance of interests will have been achieved,since his determination will not necessarily be fair. And it will not be, because justice is a collective task in which it is up to the majority to determine what is fair, never to a minority of a technical nature, as the wielder of state power. In accordance with the order established within the framework of the rule of law, rights are recognized as soon as they are recognized, but their appreciation belongs to the authority and never to the citizens. Reserved the matter to the determination of a minority, the rights must be born headdresses of particularity. The reality of rights is that there is almost always someone willing to declare them, because otherwise they do not exist. In this case the strongest always prevails and it is only possible to appeal to negative freedom as an individual approach to build an apparent freedom.In such a way that also through this implicit or explicit way the determination of authority appears as a determining factor. What in modern times is the least bad interim solution.
When the rights rest in the legal system, its formal perfection is appreciated, but the weakness comes with the practice. Who determines its reality is power. From the side of power, individual rights end up becoming obligations for the generality, by virtue of the law that recognizes them, and a privilege for those who grant them and those who dictate them. The rights of one or a few are obligations for others. And this is an instrument to reinforce official power, making the common subject to particularity by virtue of legality. However, here the simple application of the norm does not come into play, but rather the sensitivity of convenience promoted by the group that capitalizes on this particularity as an instrument of social power that is sold to the official power through the electoral currency. In this way,any particularity, protected by a group, that allows them to play official power is used by politics to raise their social status with an eye to the polls. The parties fight to electorally capitalize on the particularity backed by groups of various interests, to the extent that countless of them dominate the panorama of the common, with the pretense of imposing themselves as a sign of progress, even if they contravene common sense. All this is called protection of individual rights, when it really is about privileges granted to electorally representative minorities, willing to destroy general rights in order to make them feel pleased. Imposing the particular over the general in order to obtain party electoral revenues is today the visible face of politics.With the one on the other side he fixes his gaze on strengthening himself as a power. To this end, the use of instruments for manipulating collective thought is required, in such a way that the banality of fashion at the time, used for political purposes, can be understood as a real representation of individual rights and freedoms through which it must pass. the collective conscience necessarily. Those rights are imposed, even though they may restrict the freedom of others. Therefore, true freedom sometimes wanders erratically without the possibility of defining itself in the sphere of individuality or in the sum of individualities. It only satisfies minorities integrated into coincident interest groups ready to destroy the freedom of the majority, while the individual is lost in anonymity and indifference.Individual freedom seems to be a mirage and individual rights, like freedom, have been supplanted by the rights and freedoms of the group.
This is the panorama in which individual rights and freedom operate, with which the freedom to express oneself can hardly overcome the censorship of the interest groups that swarm in today's democratic societies. On the other hand, freedom of expression, limited to the field of human, civil and political rights proposed by the bourgeois revolution, as an adornment more in line with Enlightenment thought, has always been well received, as long as it does not bother whoever holds it. political power. Thus, it refers to everything that follows the ideological lines of the dogma established by the government in power. If they fight with him, the usual thing has been to redirect the opposition to the field of ostracism, frequently making use of censorship, officially established or covert,putting obstacles or disavowing by decree what is not orthodox. Condemning to silence and oblivion what was seen as acrimony, did not entail difficulty for those who had exclusive use of the instruments of repression and controlled the sources of public communication and even showed their power towards the private, putting it at their service. The argument is justified in that although censorship is rejected, because it has a bad image, subsequent responsibility takes its place, with the courts coming into play to repress it.putting it at your service. The argument is justified in that although censorship is rejected, because it has a bad image, subsequent responsibility takes its place, with the courts coming into play to repress it.putting it at your service. The argument is justified in that although censorship is rejected, because it has a bad image, subsequent responsibility takes its place, with the courts coming into play to repress it.
With the advent of the information society and the development of the internet, freedom of expression seemed to see the light. Traditional solutions were ineffective for repression, because the exercise of freedom of expression exceeded them, since it followed other channels beyond the control of the public powers. Although it moved in the realm of the virtual, it was appreciated as something real, because it had direct effects on the existence of many, it crossed borders, reaching a previously unthinkable diffusion and individuals could exercise it regardless of the dictates imposed by interest groups. Those affected by the demonstrations, wounded in their vanity, cried out their impotence, the controllers of the information saw their secrets unveiled and power lost authority.But like any political power worth its salt, it was forced to take measures in theoretical defense of its proteges and fundamentally its own. Thus, the freedom of expression that was advertised on the internet remained the mirage of an era.
Initially, disavowal was enough, simply claiming the lack of quality of the arguments contrary to dogma, slipped outside of academic channels. The salaried intellectuals of the system had been fighting with the arrogance that the class grants when it moved and moves within the boundaries of official doctrine; which is wise because their livelihood depends on it, since that is their job. From another dimension, the official propaganda acted and acts, dedicating a part of its activity to demolishing illegal constructions with the artillery of the system. Private media also continue to collaborate, focusing on the matter as an advertising activity, making calculations to value their contribution in the income statement,including the added value of contributing to the dissemination of dogma. Everything was situated and situated outside this controlling network of thought and its expression was unauthorized, labeling it as a conspiracy. The spectrum was almost covered, hardly without fissures, but even so they were produced and still are produced.
Today the strategy of discrediting is no longer enough, we are facing a desperate attempt by the established power to avoid losing control of what is declared as the rights of individuals, as useful as currency for doing politics. Overwhelmed by the advance of new technologies and the innovative greed of the masses, he goes to the doctrinal debate to, from the monologue, establish positions on the limits of freedom of expression. And as in this case you are interested, the private rights affected must be protected with the public legal arsenal. On the contrary, the right to express oneself freely is not politically useful if it does not move within academicism and propaganda, both charged in their levels of influence with fixing the orthodoxy of dogma.
They seem to have raised the alarms on the occasion of the simple exercise of freedom of expression, giving way to thought, disseminating opinions, when it turns out that it is simply a matter of communicating. To a large extent they are manifestations, reflections of personal opinions, verbal or written, reflexive or spontaneous occurrences that contribute to define, in one sense or another, the subject as a person. Hiding them in the dark enclosure of individual thought does not allow to disguise the reality that anyone offers to reveal, because people, objects, circumstances and acts are as they are and there they are. Socially valued, freedom of expression allows it to be put in its place, because the general will has always been sovereign, even if it is despite power.The offense to the dignity of the people is a worthless argument when it aims to cover up the indignity, because in any case the truthful information plans on the supposed dignity. According to her, the offensive is usually in bad taste and often bordering on the ridiculous for those who express it, which is enough to discredit him. The condescending sounds suspicious, but there with its considerations. Praise, a variant of propaganda or publicity. But the sensible expression is the one that matches reality. And this, although it hurts or bothers the affected person, does not change due to the fact that it is silenced. At this point, far from invoking repression, resorting to a variant of irony, proposed by Rorty, could perhaps soften the argument of the limits of the debate on freedom of expression. In any case,as it always ends up being under control, you have to see it from the business perspective or from the belief for one or the other. For the power, although the matter is drawn as a defense of rights and freedoms, it is designed to preserve its own interests. Often the freedom of the media is only freedom to sell, not to transfer knowledge. In the case of the gregarious citizen, who so delusions the power by his fidelity, what circulates against the current is immoral. And a great majority understand freedom of expression as entertainment to replace information, an option that leads to misinformation and then to be subject to manipulation.Although the matter is drawn as a defense of rights and freedoms, it is designed to preserve their own interests. Often the freedom of the media is only freedom to sell, not to transfer knowledge. In the case of the gregarious citizen, who so delusions the power by his fidelity, what circulates against the current is immoral. And a great majority understand freedom of expression as entertainment to replace information, an option that leads to misinformation and then to be subject to manipulation.Although the matter is drawn as a defense of rights and freedoms, it is designed to preserve their own interests. Often the freedom of the media is only freedom to sell, not to transfer knowledge. In the case of the gregarious citizen, who so delusions the power by his fidelity, what circulates against the current is immoral. And a great majority understand freedom of expression as entertainment to replace information, an option that leads to misinformation and then to be subject to manipulation.understands freedom of expression as entertainment to replace information, an option that leads to misinformation and then to be subject to manipulation.understands freedom of expression as entertainment to replace information, an option that leads to misinformation and then to be subject to manipulation.
Converted into a workhorse for doctrinaires, a workload for the courts of justice and business for those who feel like victims or beneficiaries, in addition to power when challenged, freedom of expression has become not just another adornment of the society of representative democracy, but a path to follow to practice tolerance. If everyone can say what they want, the faculty of reply is always open on the same ground, and if it is supported by evidence it ends up being devastating for the falsifier. But for illustrative purposes, the right to knowledge cannot be denied, regardless of who it comes from and affects whoever it affects. With greater sense if they are voters, in order to gain full knowledge of who they vote for. At the level of individualities, the expired right to honor,which is often linked to personal pride, or the right to privacy, the great fallacy overwhelmed by technological advances, whether private or public, only make sense when they are used for political purposes by the ruler. Subjectivity is irrelevant, it only acquires consistency when it has an interest in power.
In the case of those who make a living from business, those who encourage the spirits of those who aspire to get out by advertising the anonymity imposed by the masses, do not defend the rights of others, but the economic profitability of their company. The media that support the economic business in using and abusing the freedom of expression of others for the entertainment of their followers, make a contribution to the development of information, otherwise they detract, the credibility of the credulous is weakened and the faithful to entertainment emigrate.
Making a crime of freedom that does not coincide with dogma, arguing the protection that must be provided to those affected by their free exercise and the limits to which they must submit, is the beginning of a spiral of anti-freedom. Every day the wielder of power, as a good conjurer, pulls new crimes out of the hat to the amazement of the audience and justify his payroll. It is no longer just a matter of condemning the dissident to silence, but of executing the revenge of justice against those who have the audacity to challenge power through any form of heterodox expression. Repressive codes become more voluminous with the passage of time, converting almost all human activity into crime, in order to tighten the fence on collective thought so that it moves in the terms required by dogma.Safe is what pertains to all those expressions that betray respect for the system, submission to its legality of convenience and the abuse of power exercised by virtue of that legitimizing balm that is called representative democracy. However, it does not openly establish censorship or visible barriers, it simply condemns to protect the image. Today the rulers have changed the vision of the declared enemy state of freedom of expression, as Fiss observes, so that we imagine the state as the friend of freedom. There certainly has to be some cheating. To begin with, in that protective plane of expression, some things are hidden, others are not, as appropriate. Limits are placed on knowledge, on knowing. The friend is protected, without prejudice to the fact that this is extended to lies, indignity, dishonor and false privacy.Behind the limits of freedom of expression, knowledge itself ends up being limited.
Speaking of advanced societies, where repression in freedom, as a pure paradox, is the toll to be paid for improving the quality of life, the horizon narrows. Taking advantage of advances in technology, translated into business benefits, the policy is aimed at business in its field. Without further functions its power is limited, while by creating new legal fictions the power becomes unlimited. Their lack of creativity is compensated by that of the masses, which only suffice to repress to obtain political returns. Curiously, repressing freedoms that harm him is formulated as an attack on the myth of the people, of which he becomes a defender, disguising in such a way what is called the right to information that it ceases to be, because, once the limits set by the doctrine are exceeded, transforms into crime, whether of insults,slander, hatred or simple apology for evil. The victim is the system because it demonstrates its shortcomings, the injured call is an instrument of power to accumulate more power, which is relieved by offering the possibility of economic benefits. But you forget that the privacy for sale detracts from the sense of respect.
Finally, one could innocently ask the wind, in a global system dominated by
the bureaucracy with the tolerance of capitalism, in which everything is a sin - understand criminal offense, except to sing the virtues of the current ruler, out there, where can freedom of expression be practiced? Although affected by deficiencies, do not think that for this reason freedom of expression will disappear, at least it will remain in force, not only as long as it praises the power and its protégés, but that the other face will remain intact, although the rulers are despite. And it is that power is not recommended to overlook some substantial aspects. First, the imagination of the masses surpasses him and he will always walk in the forefront. Second, its dogmas cool to exhaustion and end up being nothing. Third, freedom of expression, even if it temporarily finds refuge in thought,Sooner or later better times will come and it will be possible to speak openly.
Antonio Lorca Siero May 2017.
Download the original file
