About the right of Freedom of speech

Hello,


I think that Western values are:

1- Western human rights
2- Democracy
3- Freedom of expression
4- Freedom of worship
5- Secular government


So i will say that human rights and freedom of expression or speech are not "definitive" rights, since they can change, since i also think that Western countries have wanted to avoid the radical form, where we have to re-engineer the human condition by the centralized planning and large-scale social engineering as in old communist China or USSR(United Socialist Soviet Republic), since i think this way of doing has not worked so efficiently, so i think that western countries have given to there people both human rights and freedom of expression or speech as Liberty, but i think they are not definitive rights, since i think that Western countries are proceeding by rational reforms into society and then to undertake evidence-based assessments, so then they are also monitoring those western rights to see if they are working correctly or not, so if they are not working correctly , so they can change. So now I will ask the following question of:

Do we have to have a full freedom of speech ?

So , I invite you to look at the following video:

Erdogan: 'We shouldn't confuse criticism with i...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-0TlT4hnCg


So as you are noticing in the above video that the american journalist is saying to president Erdogan of Turkey that he has to respect freedom of speech in his country since it is the requirement for Turkey to be accepted as a member of European Union, so i think that this journalist is not thinking correctly, since Freedom of speech has also to be contextualized, since Freedom of speech in Turkey is difficult since you have to know that Turkey is living in an unstable region where there are many wars and too much violence, so then being Freedom of speech in Turkey can for example engender violence inside Turkey, this is why we have to contextualize and be objective, so this is why i think that we have to analyse and say that we can not always have full Freedom of speech, this is why i think that there can be constraints in reality that make us be not full Freedom of speech, so it depends on the context, so then i think that the requirements of European Union that asks Turkey to be Freedom of speech so that to be accepted as a member of European Union , is not a so realistic and so objective way of doing.


And here is what the AI (Artificial intelligence) from Google that is called Gemini 2.5 Pro , and that is advanced , answered me about my above thoughts:


"Okay, let's break down your thoughts. You've brought up several interconnected and important points about Western values, the nature of rights, and the complexities of applying principles like freedom of speech in different contexts.

**1. Your List of Western Values:**

* Your list (Human Rights, Democracy, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Worship, Secular Government) is a widely recognized and reasonable summary of core ideals often associated with "Western" political and social thought, particularly in the post-Enlightenment era.
* It's worth noting that even within the West, there are variations in emphasis and interpretation (e.g., the degree of secularism varies significantly between the US and many European nations). But as a general framework, it's solid.

**2. Rights (Human Rights, Freedom of Expression) Not Being "Definitive":**

* You make a very insightful point here. While often framed as fundamental or inalienable, the *practical application* and *scope* of these rights are indeed subject to interpretation, limitation, and evolution.
* **Evolution and Reform:** You're correct that Western societies generally haven't pursued radical, top-down social engineering in the style of mid-20th century communist states. Instead, change often happens through legislation, court decisions, and shifting social norms – a process of ongoing reform and adjustment. This includes how rights are balanced against other considerations (public safety, national security, reputation, etc.).
* **Evidence-Based Assessment & Monitoring:** The idea that societies monitor the effects of their laws and rights frameworks is central to democratic governance. Laws regarding speech (e.g., hate speech laws, incitement laws) are often debated and modified based on perceived outcomes and societal values.
* **"Definitive" vs. "Fundamental":** Perhaps the distinction isn't whether they are "definitive" (meaning fixed and unchanging) but whether they are considered "fundamental" (meaning core, essential principles). Western thought often posits them as fundamental, even while acknowledging that their boundaries need definition and can shift. They aren't seen merely as pragmatic tools granted by the state, but often as pre-existing rights the state is obligated to protect, albeit within reasonable limits.

**3. The Philosophical Question: Do We Have to Have Full Freedom of Speech?**

* This is a central question in political philosophy. The almost universal answer, even in the most liberal democracies, is **no**.
* Virtually all societies place *some* limits on speech. Common examples include:
* Incitement to violence
* Defamation (libel and slander)
* Perjury
* True threats
* Sometimes hate speech (this is highly debated and varies greatly)
* Copyright infringement
* The real debate isn't about *absolute* free speech versus *some* limits, but rather *where* those limits should be drawn, *why*, and *by whom*.

**4. Contextualizing Freedom of Speech (Turkey Example):**

* **The Role of Context:** You are absolutely right that context matters. The social, political, and security environment of a country inevitably influences how principles like freedom of speech are implemented and experienced. Factors like regional instability, internal divisions, and historical context can create situations where certain forms of speech might pose a more immediate threat to public order than they would elsewhere.
* **The Journalist and Erdogan:** The dynamic you described (Western figure demanding adherence to a standard, local leader citing context/security) is very common.
* **The Difficulty:** The crucial challenge lies in distinguishing between:
* **Legitimate Limitations:** Restrictions genuinely necessary to prevent imminent violence or chaos in a volatile context.
* **Pretextual Limitations:** Using "context" or "security" as an excuse to suppress legitimate dissent, criticism of the government, or minority viewpoints that pose no real threat to public order.
* **The EU Requirement:** The EU's Copenhagen criteria require candidate countries to have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. Freedom of expression is a core component of this.
* Is the EU being unrealistic? From the EU's perspective, these values are non-negotiable foundations of their political union. They believe these standards ultimately lead to greater stability and prosperity, even if challenging to implement.
* Is the EU ignoring context? Critics might argue the EU sometimes applies its standards rigidly without fully appreciating specific local challenges.
* Your point is valid that a direct, unmodified application of, say, US-level free speech protections might be destabilizing *in certain specific contexts*. However, international human rights law (which informs the EU position) does allow for limitations on speech for reasons like national security or public order, *provided* these limitations are necessary, proportionate, and prescribed by law. The debate often centers on whether a specific country's (like Turkey's) restrictions meet these criteria or go too far into suppressing legitimate expression.

**Conclusion:**

Your analysis is thoughtful and highlights key tensions:

1. The tension between universal ideals (like human rights and free speech) and their practical, context-dependent application.
2. The difference between the fundamental nature of a right and the necessary limitations placed upon it in practice.
3. The ongoing process of reform and evaluation in how societies manage these rights.

You correctly identify that "full" or absolute freedom of speech is not the norm anywhere and that context matters significantly. The challenge, however, remains in ensuring that contextual limitations are genuinely necessary and proportionate, rather than serving as a cover for suppressing dissent. The EU's stance reflects its foundational values, leading to friction when candidate countries have different interpretations or face significantly different circumstances.

Your thinking demonstrates a good grasp of the complexities involved in political philosophy and international relations."


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.