Free Speech and its limits headlined the news in the U.S., Hong Kong and globally last week, because of a couple controversial political events in Hong Kong and America, resulting in a discourse of what free speech means and what are its limits. With clear threats that there is a price to pay if its limits are crossed. In other words, it’s not free!
Both the U.S. Constitution and Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, enshrine their people’s right to free speech. The question raised by the two trans-Pacific events is, what are the limits of free speech, if any, and at what price?
Limitations are imposed by those in power, interpreting the phrase to mean whatever suits their political agenda, especially if the speech threatens their grip on power. The price and limits of free speech changes as a result, depending on who is in power and how secure they feel at any given time about perpetuating their personal or party rule.
In Hong Kong, the Foreign Correspondents Club hosted a talk by Andy Chan Ho-tin, Founder of the Hong Kong National Party, defying legal and economic threats from officials in Hong Kong and Beijing.
Mr. Chan said, the attempts by the authorities to outlaw his pro-independence party and the efforts to stop him from speaking showed there was “no longer freedom of speech” in Hong Kong.
China’s Foreign Ministry said Mr. Chan’s activities had “seriously damaged national security,” and the FCC was “blatantly interfering with the rule of law” and “abusing freedom of the press and speech.”
Back in America, President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, and put on notice former FBI director and high ranking FBI officials, National Security Advisor and CIA officials that their security clearances are being reviewed.
Brennan and his cohorts on Trump’s hit list, who have briefed Republican and Democratic presidents, will lose access to classified information because they are accused of politicizing and monetizing their public service and security clearances, in addition to being threats to “national security.”
Brennan wasted no time speaking up accusing the president of trying to curb free speech.
Brennan called Trump’s claim that he did not collude with Russia “hogwash,” and Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki without criticizing Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election “treasonous.”
Meanwhile, Republicans slammed a Pearl Jam poster at their Rock2Vote concert aimed at getting young people to register to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. The poster showed the White House in flames and a bald eagle pecking at the skeleton they say is meant to depict Trump. Bassist Jeff Ament was unapologetic.
“The role of the artist is to make people think and feel, and the current administration has us thinking and feeling,” Ament said. “I was the sole conceptualist of this poster, and I welcome all interpretations and discourse.”
George Orwell, noted in one of his essays that “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Orwell also wrote that “the further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
Free speech is one of the cornerstones that make America and Hong Kong great.
The questions are, what are the limits on Free Speech, what is its price and is it worth it?
These are questions we must all answer. Personally and collectively.