When will true freedom of expression be realized?

Chief Advisor Dr. Muhammad Yunus speaks articulately, and his speeches are heard worldwide. Upon assuming power, he urged everyone to highlight the government's mistakes. He believes in unrestricted freedom of speech. He expressed a desire to free the people of the country from the closed environment of previous party governments. Not only the Chief Advisor but also the interim government has repeatedly reaffirmed this commitment. Moreover, one of the main promises emerging from the August 5 uprising is media freedom. However, the reality in the country is quite different, and it is unlikely that the Chief Advisor is unaware of it. Despite the strong call to criticize the government, the media has been more restrained than necessary in presenting true information. Fear of being attacked by 'mob justice' or labeled as 'dictator’s ally' has led the media to ensure their safety by speaking sycophantic words, much like the past 15 years. The editorial council feels that media freedom is still under attack.

Just as self-censorship existed during the Awami League’s rule, most journalists still adhere to it. This is evident from the protest at the front of the 'Prothom Alo' office in Karwan Bazar, where a cow was slaughtered with the words 'Mati Cow' written on it. Observing such an environment, many continue the practices of the past 15 years, avoiding new thinking and maintaining the habit of traditional sycophancy. However, this does not mean that government criticism is absent. Just like during the Awami League period, many still speak their minds from abroad. Meanwhile, those criticizing the government within the country are mostly those who were oppressed during the Awami League's tenure or who actively supported the anti-discrimination student movement. Anyone outside this circle who criticizes is questioned, "Where were you for the last 15 years?"

Article 39 of Part III of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression and media freedom for every citizen, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of national security, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency, morality, or in cases of contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to crime. The title of the mentioned article is "Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Speech." According to the Constitution, the government is granted extensive power to restrict freedom of speech. The interpretation of any writing can vary in many ways, and it has always been so, but the government presents such interpretations that allow for the filing of anti-state cases under any pretext. Now, cases of treason are being filed for the desecration of the national flag. However, in America, tearing and damaging the national flag in public is not considered an anti-state act. In the Western world, wearing a bra or bikini on the national flag’s design is not considered an anti-state activity. The restrictions imposed by law in our country are not specific, which allows the government to misuse them at will.

Freedom of speech means expressing one's opinion without seeking approval from any authority. It implies that no one will interfere with the freedom of expression. Every individual has the right to express their opinions and feelings. According to international human rights law, the right to free speech includes the right to express opinions without interference, the right to collect information from any source, and to disseminate that information through speech, writing, painting, or other mediums. However, the exercise of the right to free speech requires a sense of responsibility. Unrestricted exercise of free speech can sometimes harm the reputation or dignity of others. To prevent defamation, spreading rumors, or attacking someone with obscene or offensive language, freedom of speech is restricted by law. When one person's freedom of speech conflicts with or creates a clash with another's, it becomes necessary to restrict freedom of speech.

The government, according to the constitution, can enact laws and apply them broadly against those who disrupt national security and public order, and it is doing so. Holding rallies or delivering speeches on the streets is also against public order, as it obstructs the free movement of other citizens. This policy of depriving others of their rights is commonly applied in Bangladesh. The opposition demands rights like strikes, rallies, and road blockades, but once in power, they consider these actions crimes. The opposition has been criticizing the 'Special Powers Act' enacted in 1974 for 50 years, but no one has abolished it after coming to power. Similarly, the opposition is vocal about the Digital Security Act. Even if this law is misused, it seems unlikely to be repealed. This is because degrading language is often used on social media to discredit the opposing side. Furthermore, personal attacks, threats, falsehoods, misinformation, and the spread of rumors on social media confuse people, create disorder in society, and lead to conflicts. Therefore, the Digital Security Act is necessary to curb obscene language, rumors, and false statements.

Media freedom is accepted as long as it does not infringe on others' freedom. Defamation of any individual is a punishable offense, and freedom of speech must be exercised within this framework. However, the degree of media freedom varies in different times and contexts. In the Western world, the media is relatively liberal, where the depiction of a head of state as a frog or pig does not harm their dignity. However, in our country, mocking the head of state in such a manner would lead to imprisonment and fines. While hate speech is curbed in all countries, it is not in the Indian subcontinent. Religious speeches, no matter how hateful, are often supported by religious texts. It is nearly impossible to restrict religious preaching through secular law. Those who advocate for unrestricted freedom of speech in our country also support curbing freedom of speech in religious matters. In the past, the state and religion worked together to suppress scientific discoveries that went against religious beliefs. Many individuals oppose the Digital Security Act but support the Blasphemy Law.

The question of freedom of speech is tied to the issue of truth and falsehood. Establishing a truth that is acceptable to everyone is difficult. The demolition of the Babri Mosque or the attack on temples in Nasirnagar are certainly not events that everyone would accept. No religion has ever been universally accepted, which is why eight billion people live on Earth under the rule of 4,200 religions. When any single view is imposed on everyone as the ultimate truth, conflict and violence begin. It is noteworthy that while no religion is universal, the truths discovered by Bruno or Copernicus are now universally accepted. The death sentence by poisoning given to philosopher Socrates or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ were judgments passed by the ruling authorities of their time. Therefore, there is not much difference between 'mob justice' or modern judicial decisions like 'remand' and the execution of Socrates or Jesus Christ. As soon as the interim government realizes this, the media world will respond to the call of the chief advisor.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank.