Rwanda is not free, what do you think?

The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious issues in liberal societies. If the liberty to express oneself is not highly valued, as has often been the case, there is no problem: freedom of expression is simply curtailed in favor of other values. Free speech becomes a volatile issue when it is highly valued because only then do the limitations placed upon it become controversial. The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because speech always takes place within a context of competing values. In this sense, Stanley Fish is correct when he says that there is no such thing as free speech. Free speech is simply a useful term to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction and the phrase is not meant to suggest that speech should never be interfered with. As Fish puts it, “free speech in short, is not an independent value but a political prize” (1994,102). No society has yet existed where speech has not been limited to some extent. As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of liberty and authority, and we cannot have the latter without the former:
All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed—by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)
The task, therefore, is not to argue for an unlimited domain of free speech; such a concept cannot be defended. Instead, we need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to the value we place on other important ideals: “speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good” (Fish, 1994, 104). In this essay, we will examine some conceptions of the good that are deemed to be acceptable limitations on speech. We will start with the harm principle and then move on to other more encompassing arguments for limiting speech.

People who know what bananas mean; Enjoy.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804290311.html http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Rwanda.asp
http://allafrica.com/stories/200804150174.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/05/rwanda_media_struggle_with_press_curbs/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1241
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803200153.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/200709130021.html
http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Rwanda
http://www.wacc.org.uk/wacc/publications/media_development/2007_4/journalism_training_and_media_freedom_in_rwanda
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90115.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAFR470022007
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/sections.php?magazine=149&sections=42
http://rwanda.usembassy.gov/may_8_2008.html
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/eve/646023400.html
http://www.bloggernews.net/14212
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-2/Benesch.html

Keep posted