The essence of personal existence, personality and identity of a human being is contemplation and thought. It is through the mind and thought that humans can first achieve self-awareness and ultimately understand the nature and purpose of their existence. Of course, this can only be achieved when a person is accepted as free, independent and capable, so that they can organize their individual and social life through the power of choice, reasoning and independent decision-making.

***

At first, we examine the concept of freedom from the perspective of philosophers, thinkers, political schools, and religions.

John Locke, the great English philosopher of the 17th century – who is known as the prophet of the English Revolution – speaks about the relationship between freedom and law: The purpose of law is not to eliminate or limit freedom, but to protect and promote it. Without law, there can be no freedom; because freedom does not mean being free from the restraint and trespassing of others, and in a place where there is no law, this freedom will come into existence. Contrary to what we have heard, freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants, for example, a person is not free to take away someone else’s life, property, or freedom. Freedom is the ability for a person to do as they please, within the limits set by just laws, and not be subject to the arbitrary will of another person. This applies to all laws – whether natural or civil, which humans are subject to. (1).

Mentzky is also mentioned in the valuable book.

The spirit of laws.

“Specifically, it has brought up the issue of freedom of speech. Montesquieu says about freedom of speech: The essence of freedom and the right to protect and preserve it is that individuals are free to express their thoughts and feelings freely, and citizens of a free state can say and write whatever is not prohibited by law. (2) In the personal interpretation of the writer, Montesquieu’s intention of “not prohibited by law” refers to cases where the content of individuals’ expressions contradicts moral and human principles, such as the current situation in Western societies where inhumane and explicitly criminal content (international crimes) is being arrested. Montesquieu also says: There is nothing more unjust than condemning people for their reckless statements. People’s words can be interpreted in various ways. The law can only punish someone for expressing explicit and not implicit criminal intentions. (3).”

Furthermore, Baruch Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher who is considered one of the greatest rationalists and determinists of the 17th century and a precursor to the rise of religious criticism and the Enlightenment in the 18th century, like other thinkers, acknowledges the importance of freedom of expression: “Let us suppose that this freedom [of expression] can be suppressed and people can be so controlled that they do not have the courage to speak anything other than what the ruling power demands of them. Now, it will certainly never be the case that they will only think as the authorities want them to, and therefore it will necessarily be the case that people will constantly think one way and say another. This undermines the trust that is the first essential condition of any country [especially a republic]; flattery and deceit will prevail, leading to conspiracy and destroying any honest actions. Because it is impossible for everyone to speak from the same script. On the contrary, the more they try to deprive people

John Stuart Mill is also mentioned in the essay.

About Freedom.

Regarding freedom of thought and expression, there have been descriptions. It is believed that people have the right to silence opinions, either directly or indirectly by the government, is not appropriate. Governments do not have the right to forcibly silence opinions. Such an act is inherently destructive and harmful. Even if it is in line with public opinion, the damage is greater than when it goes against those same opinions. (5).

Systems and political ideologies also spoke about freedom of thought and expression. One of these systems was fascism, which believed that the value of a human being was dependent on their relationship with the state and saw individuals as serving the state, where the state had the power to decide their life or death. They believed that the individual’s public freedoms were determined by the state, which granted them with its authoritative power. This ideology was formulated by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and was put into practice between 1922 and 1943. In the fascist ideology, everything belongs to the state and there is no concept of individualism or spirituality outside of the state. In this sense, fascism is authoritarian and self-centered. For this reason, Mussolini concludes that the fascist government of Italy has the right to restrict “useless” and “harmful” freedoms and that only the government can be the judge in this matter.

According to Nazism, the value of a human is dependent on their race. Therefore, an individual serves the racial community that controls their life and death. In this regard, the 1920 program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party clearly shows that public freedoms are completely suppressed. Freedom, in its general dimensions, has been eliminated according to this program; as it states that the activities of the people must be within the boundaries of society and for the benefit of all. In this program, the restriction of personal rights is explicitly addressed, including in Article 23 which states: “Newspapers that oppose public interests will be shut down.” With a little contemplation and reflection, it can be seen that there is a striking similarity to the laws of the Islamic Republic and the opinions of its supposed experts.

As a result, these authoritarian political systems manipulate selflessness to gain honor and prestige for themselves. However, behind this emotional manipulation lies a very sorrowful reality; because fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, like other authoritarian systems, are inevitably dependent on manipulating people’s emotions (demagoguery) on one hand, and creating an atmosphere of real assassination and character assassination on the other hand, in order to maintain their power.

Freedom of speech has also been mentioned in religions, as Zoroaster, in hymn 23, has placed three fundamental principles of good thinking, good speech, and good deeds as the basis of human life and the path to the principles of justice and for the attainment of a good life. The importance of these principles is such that even in the midst of three thousand years of religious developments, their value has not been diminished.

Freedom is the most precious blessing of Ahura Mazda, which is manifested in the expressions of free thought, freedom of belief, and the choice of religion. The roots of this freedom must be sought in the principles of the Gathas (17 hymns that have been attributed to the words of Zoroaster since ancient times) in the search for the relationship between the Creator and the created. Ahura Mazda is the embodiment of wisdom and has given the gift of wisdom to all humans to consult with him in their affairs. Blind imitation has no place in Zoroastrian tradition, and the Gathas command the use of wisdom in all matters.

In the following discussion of religions, reference will be made to verses from the Quran, because this topic itself requires expansion, examination, and extensive research. As we move forward, we will encounter various theories and narrow-minded perspectives that need to be thoroughly discussed in order to elaborate on the subject.

In Islam, there has always been an emphasis on inviting people to accept Islam in a thoughtful manner; as the Quran repeatedly mentions and addresses human beings as believers and non-believers. Faith is portrayed as a transformation of the human being through the blessings of teachings, which the Quran has guided people towards through thoughtful invitation. In essence, confronting the heartfelt beliefs and religious convictions of individuals, which are shaped by environmental and spiritual factors, social relationships, and especially education and upbringing, cannot be achieved through force. As stated in verse 256 of Surah Al-Baqarah, coercion is not permissible in matters of religion; because heartfelt beliefs and religious convictions arise through reason and acceptance of conscience, and it is not possible to change someone’s belief through coercion and force.

Furthermore, in verse 29 of Surah Al-Kahf, the Prophet of Islam is addressed: “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord; so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.'” Based on this and according to verse 99 of Surah Yunus which states: “And if your Lord had willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” The freedom of belief and expression must be considered as one of the divine wisdoms that even the true prophets do not have the authority to impose it. Therefore, in verses 21 and 22 of Surah Al-Ghashiyah, the position of the Prophet is only to remind, without forcing anyone to believe through power and authority.

As it can be seen from the evidence and indications, in the Quran, only the Prophet has been granted permission to warn individuals and speak about those who claim to be representatives of the absent Imam.

In the next step, we refer to freedom of expression in international conventions and other countries’ laws on human rights.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948 at the United Nations General Assembly, recognizes the right of every individual to freedom of thought and expression. This includes the freedom to hold beliefs and opinions without interference or harassment, and the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media without any restrictions.

Furthermore, in order to complete this freedom, articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations on December 29, 1966, have stipulated:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice, whether individually or collectively, openly or in private, in worship and observance, and in teaching and practicing religious rituals and customs.” (Article 18) Also, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 19 of the Covenant state that “Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to express them freely” and “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice.”

Despite accepting and adhering to international treaties, the Islamic Republic is not loyal to the above-mentioned principles. While developed countries adhere to these principles and also strive to ensure that if a law is passed, it is not in conflict with international laws.

Freedom of speech is also mentioned in the constitutions of various countries. For example, Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and other forms of expression and does not allow any form of censorship. Article 21 of the South Korean Constitution also considers freedom of speech mandatory for all its citizens and even in a preventive measure, in paragraph 4 of the same article, it provides for compensation for any damages caused by it.

In addition, Italy has recognized freedom of speech as an inherent right in its 21 constitutions and has clearly defined its parameters. Similarly, Sweden, which has a great respect for media independence since ancient times, is the first country in the world to have formulated laws for media freedom and freedom of expression. However, journalists continue to be victims of threats, online hate campaigns, and unjust legal complaints. According to Reporters Without Borders, Sweden ranks third out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom. Norway and Denmark are ranked first and second, respectively.

In the United States – which was once a model for media freedom and freedom of speech – cases of violations of media freedom are increasing at an alarming rate. The case of Daryl Morey is an example of this; the Houston Rockets is one of the American basketball teams playing in the NBA. Daryl Morey, the manager of this team, expressed support for Hong Kong protesters in a tweet and described their efforts as a “fight for freedom”. However, neither the owner of the Houston Rockets nor the NBA supported him. Morey was actually forced to delete his tweet. Since Chinese state television had stopped broadcasting some NBA games, the NBA issued statements and tried to appease the Chinese and called Morey’s tweet “regrettable”. Why should an individual’s personal support be considered “regrettable”, especially when it has been emphasized that this tweet is not the opinion of the club, but the personal opinion of an individual? But it’s all about money and nothing else! The fear

It should also be noted that in Saudi Arabia, there is no true freedom of speech and it includes illegal insults to sacred things and harsh punishments. According to Reporters Without Borders, Saudi Arabia ranks 166th out of 180 countries in terms of media freedom and freedom of speech in 2022. There are no independent media outlets in Saudi Arabia and Saudi journalists abroad are heavily monitored. Since 2017, the number of imprisoned journalists and bloggers in this country has tripled.

Freedom of speech is a term that has lost its true meaning in the laws and regulations of different countries. Freedom of speech means the expression of thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and tastes. This type of freedom grants individuals the right to express their thoughts and beliefs to all people through speech, media, books, conferences, research, and intellectual pursuits. Having the freedom of belief is not enough for the growth and intellectual development of a person, but expressing and voicing one’s beliefs is necessary and essential. Therefore, freedom of speech and freedom of belief complement each other and have a simultaneous meaning and concept. Freedom of speech can be expressed in various forms and formats in order to achieve freedom of belief. However, expressing beliefs and ideas in the form of freedom of speech should be in accordance with the fundamental laws of some modern countries, subject to the principles of world peace and within the framework of the rule of law and people-centered governance.

Contrary to the statements of Mr. Hossein Ali Hajideligani, a member of the presiding board of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (author of the bill on punishment for expressing opinions), the existence and determination of predetermined limits for freedom of expression calls into question the nature and necessity of this unquestionable right. Why? Because by imposing these limitations, we are essentially depriving individuals of their right to freedom of expression and causing them to adhere more strictly to their opinions – even if they are mistaken. This is because psychologically, if an opinion is forcefully imposed, it will not be accepted.

For example, according to Article 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, “….are free to express their opinions, unless it violates the principles of Islam or public rights.”

As you can see, this principle has greatly limited the right to freedom of speech and it can even be said that it has not recognized the right to freedom of speech at all. Why? Because a government based on Islam – meaning its foundation is Islam – and considers freedom of speech permissible only if it does not contradict the principles of Islam, inherently denies this right without any hesitation. Another important point is that, according to the usual practice, there is always vagueness and ambiguity in the laws of Iran, and this issue sometimes leads to arbitrary interpretations of the laws and articles, which the Constitution is not exempt from. In this article, the term “disruption” or “contradiction” is mentioned without clarifying what the legislator means by disruption. Or what action is considered a disruption. Or what are the principles of Islam; are all the pillars of Islam considered as principles? This is while the Constitution of a country should be presented to the people in the utmost clarity and transparency

This example is a prominent example of “innovation in freedom of expression” that is full of demagoguery and populism, while it is clear that there is no possibility of freedom of expression in the media. Freedom of expression cannot be limited to an organization (in this case, the media). However, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic considers freedom of expression conditional on observing Islamic principles and national interests, which even in general or specific laws, has not clarified and explained these principles and interests; a matter that is prone to many abuses in judicial proceedings.

Based on the global ranking of media freedom and freedom of expression by Reporters Without Borders, Iran is among the worst countries in the world for media freedom and remains one of the most oppressive countries for journalists. According to these statistics, in 2022, Iran ranked 178 out of 180 countries.

This is the result of the struggle between totalitarianism (oppression) and its most important tool, demagogy (deception of the masses).

Freedom of speech has lost its true meaning in totalitarian systems, or it is better to say that these systems have taken away the main meaning of freedom of speech. This is because these systems dress demagogy in the guise of democracy and address it as democracy or religious populism.

The most prominent characteristics of a totalitarian system can be described as follows: Firstly, unpredictability and uncertainty caused by unstable conditions, in which yesterday’s hero becomes today’s traitor and today’s loyal behavior is seen as tomorrow’s subversive action. The second characteristic is the widespread use of organized violence by military, paramilitary, and allied police forces, which is often hidden. The third characteristic is the suppression or elimination of organizations and associations that do not align with the main goal of the system. The fourth aspect is the extensive participation of the people in government structures in order to achieve the unified goal. And the final feature is the universalization of the system’s goal through the claim of rebuilding human nature according to their own definition. (6).

Totalitarianism has eradicated freedom of thought to an extent that has never been seen before in any era. It is important to understand that its control over thought has unique and predetermined consequences. It not only prohibits you from expressing, but also from even thinking about specific thoughts, and dictates what you should think about. It creates and imposes an ideology for you and strives to not only control your emotional life, but also establish a moral code and confine you to a fabricated world where there is no standard for comparison. Authoritarian rule strives to monitor and suppress the thoughts and emotions of its citizens at any cost, at least to the same extent that it controls their behaviors and actions. (7).

***

In essence, it is not in doubt that humans are free in their natural state, but that freedom does not mean that one can act recklessly and selfishly as they please. Human beings do not have the freedom to harm themselves or others and use their freedom excessively. Rational freedom is when a person, by their own will, regulates their personality, actions, and behaviors within the boundaries of laws and rules. Just as it is stated in the constitutions of advanced countries, these countries also have limits for this undeniable right and our goal is not to determine severe punishments, but rather to establish preventive measures. In essence, by taking on intellectual responsibilities, we should strive to compensate for verbal damages.

Just like the Civil Liability Law passed on April 27, 2020, which states in Article 1 that “anyone who, as a result of negligence, causes harm to life, health, or property…is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by their actions.” This also applies to acts related to intellectual and creative property, which can be seen in most specific laws.

Therefore, our solution is based on the concept of forming rights or intellectual responsibility laws, in which perspectives that may arise from enmity, carelessness, or biases can be controlled and monitored in society. Essentially, in this theory, we proceed in a results-oriented manner and refrain from making assumptions, allowing for the emergence of new ideas and only predicting responsibility in the form of prevention and compensation, taking into account the accountability of the other party.

Notes:

1- John Locke’s theory of freedom, World Economy newspaper, issue 4664, August 23, 2019.

2- Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, translated by Mohaddi, Ali Akbar, Tehran: 1392, Amir Kabir Publishing.

3- The same…

4- Spinoza, Baruch, Divine-Political Treatise, Translation of Ferdowsi, Ali, Tehran: 1401 (7th edition), Joint Stock Publishing Company.

5- Extract, Nader, “On Freedom” by John Stuart Mill became 150 years old, Asr-e Now website, 2 Bahman 1387.

6- Spiro, Herbert, “Totalitarianism”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York: 1968, Macmillan.

7- Oroul, George, Fascism and Democracy, translated by: Ghaisari, Soodabeh, Tehran: 1400, Parsa Book Publishing.