Freedom of speech

Definition of Freedom of speech

1. The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to
communicate ideas and opinions without government intervention.

2. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or

both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not
only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting
information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of
speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations,
such as on "hate speech".

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights
law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR
recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without
interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." Furthermore
freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional
human rights law.

The right to freedom of speech and expression

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents and the
modern concept of freedom of speech emerged gradually during the European
Enlightenment. England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted 'freedom of speech in Parliament'
and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French
Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[5] The
Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights
of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be
responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Limitations on freedom of speech

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large,
recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts
with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm
principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate
speech.[34] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social
disapprobation, or both.

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest
liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,
however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression
is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social
embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in
placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others." This argument is put forth in a later chapter of "On Liberty"
where speech is not mentioned.

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that
Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful
behaviors of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed
criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious
offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is
probably a necessary means to that end Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle
sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by
law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than
harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast
Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[35]
Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of
unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into
account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social
value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the
number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the
community at large
 Cultural Globalization

Introduction:
Globalization (or globalization) describes the process by which regional economies,
societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of political ideas
through communication, transportation, and trade. The term is most closely associated
with the term economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the
international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration,
the spread of technology, and military presence.[1] However, globalization is usually
recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural,
political, and biological factors.[2] The term can also refer to the transnational circulation
of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

Definition of Globalization

Globalization is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy
that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically
economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade
liberalization or "free trade".

Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically
reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. In the post- World War
II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuiliding programs,
international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970's, the effects of this trade
became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.

Cultural Globalization

1. Cultural globalization ”refers to worldwide cultural standardization - as in ‘Coca

Colonization’ and ‘McDonaldization’ - as well as to postcolonial cultures, cultural
pluralism, and ‘hybridization.’ The various aspects of globalization that have
promoted growing contacts between different cultures, leading partly to greater
understanding and cooperation and partly to the emergence of transnational
communities and hybrid identities”
2. At the most general level, creolization can be seen as an aspect of cultural
globalization. We could be more assertive and argue that creolization is the
central feature of cultural globalization -- in that increased mobility and
connectivity have broken down any major barriers separating one culture from
another. However, this thesis is exaggerated in a number of ways. As early as
1992, Robertson (in Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture) had
pointed out that increased flows and crossovers did not necessarily lead to
harmonization or global cultural integration. Instead globalization resulted in
increased reflexivity so that people were able to assess their own cultures against
others, including powerful incoming cultures. This could lead to a revalorization
and revitalization of their own folkways, customs and beliefs. It is best perhaps to
follow Pieterse's suggestion (Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange, 2004)
 that there are three possible reactions to cultural globalization. The first is that
dominant cultures
cover the world like an oil slick, obliterating all in their path (the
McDonaldization thesis is one example of this view). The second is that, under
threat, cultural entities become more rigid and immutable and play out their
divisions in terms of ethnic, religious, racial and national violence (the clash of
civilizations thesis is an example of this view). The third view is that creolization
and hybridity result from the fuzziness and indeterminancy of cultures, resulting
in complex new syntheses and in the development of innovative 'travelling
cultures'. Obviously we are interested in this last possibility and regard it as of
major and growing significance.

Cultural effects

Globalization has influenced the use of language across the world. This street in Hong
Kong, a former British colony, shows various signs, a few of which incorporate both
Chinese and British English.

Japanese McDonald's fast food as evidence of corporate globalization and the integration
of the same into different cultures.

"Culture" is defined as patterns of human activity and the symbols that give these
activities significance. Culture is what people eat, how they dress, the beliefs they hold,
and the activities they practice. Globalization has joined different cultures and made it
into something different.

Culinary culture has become extensively globalized. For example, Japanese noodles,
Italian meatballs, Indian curry, French cheese, and American burgers and fries have
become popular outside their countries of origin. Two American companies, McDonald's
and Starbucks, are often cited as examples of globalization, with over 31,000 and 18,000
locations operating worldwide, respectively.

Another common practice brought about by globalization is the usage of Chinese

characters in tattoos. These tattoos are popular with today's youth despite the lack of
social acceptance of tattoos in China. Also, there is a lack of comprehension in the
meaning of Chinese characters that people get, making this an example of cultural
appropriation.

The internet breaks down cultural boundaries across the world by enabling easy, near-
instantaneous communication between people anywhere in a variety of digital forms and
media. The Internet is associated with the process of cultural globalization because it
allows interaction and communication between people with very different lifestyles and
from very different cultures. Photo sharing websites allow interaction even where
language would otherwise be a barrier.
Negative effects

Globalization has generated significant international opposition over concerns that it has
increased inequality and environmental degradation. In the Midwestern United States,
globalization has eaten away at its competitive edge in industry and agriculture, lowering
the quality of life.

Some also view the effect of globalization on culture as a rising concern. Along with
globalization of economies and trade, culture is being imported and exported as well. The
concern is that the stronger, bigger countries such as the United States, may overrun the
other, smaller countries' cultures, leading to those customs and values fading away. This
process is also sometimes referred to as Americanization

Globalization in question

There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or

only a myth. Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics
of the phenomenon have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note
that those features that make people believe we are in the process of globalization,
including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational
corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. Thus, many authors prefer
the use of the term internationalization rather than globalization. To put it simply, the role
of the state and the importance of nations are greater in internationalization, while
globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, these authors see that the
frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this
radical globalization process is not yet happening, and probably won't happen,
considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalization -
(the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case.)

However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation
state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and as such the
movement previously known as the anti-globalisation movemement has transmogrified
into a movement of movements for globalisation from below seeking, through
experimentation, forms of social organization that transcend the nation state and
representative democracy. So, whereas the original arguments of anti-global critique can
be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global
movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global
human society of societies.

Spread of Cultural Globalization

Globalization of Culture
A majority of Americans has a favorable view of American popular culture, though a
large minority of the public is pessimistic about the quality of US movies and television.
Americans are divided about the spread of American culture, but only a small minority
considers the dominance of US culture a threat to other cultures. When it comes to
globalization bringing greater cultural influences into the US, Americans express a
positive attitude.

One of the most controversial aspects of globalization is the worldwide spread and
dominance of American culture. Just as US goods flooded world markets in the post-
Word War II era, US culture is now penetrating every continent through the dramatic
growth of mass communications such as music, television, films and the Internet, as well
as through the penetration of American corporations into foreign countries. From China
to France to the Middle East, foreign leaders and activists have expressed fear that global
culture may become too Americanized, destroying their own cultural, economic, and
religious traditions. Where does the majority public stand?

Evaluation of American Culture

Polls show that a majority of Americans have a positive view of US culture. In the
January 2004 PIPA poll, 55% said they had a favorable view of "American popular
culture, such as music, television, and films". Forty-three percent found it to be
unfavorable. This is a bit less favorable than when the question was asked in October
1999 and 60% had a favorable view and 39% said unfavorable. Those who expressed a
"very favorable" view declined from 21% to 11% between 1999 and 2004.

With regard to the content of films and television, though, a substantial minority has
serious misgivings about the direction of US culture. In a February 1999 Los Angeles
Times Poll, respondents were nearly divided on the question of the quality of American
movies, with 47% saying they were satisfied and 42% saying they were dissatisfied. Five
percent volunteered that they were neutral. A plurality (45%) expected the content of
future American films to be about the same as it is now, but twice as many thought it
would get worse rather than better (29% to 16%). Thus, some may sympathize with
other countries that might not want to readily accept US cultural dominance in certain
areas.