Freedom of speech and expression may harm national interests

06/12/2015


The Internet has been in existence since the 1960s, and the World Wide Web since the 1990s. Cyberspace, however, remains a relatively new terrain in terms of the questions it raises about human rights and responsibilities.
The International Telecommunication Union estimates that almost 40% of the world‘s population, and over 76% of people in developed countries, are now internet users. Government, businesses, and organizations in civil society are increasingly using cyberspace platforms in the communication of information and the delivery of services. More than any previous communication medium, the Internet also offers individuals the ability to be active publishers of information on a large scale, rather than only recipients.
Accordingly, the Internet has become a major vehicle for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states (in article 19(2)): Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include 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 his choice.
The Internet has opened up new possibilities for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. However, we have to acknowledges, ‘like all technological inventions, the Internet can be misused to cause harm to others.
Perhaps the most well-known ‘cyber’ form of offensive behavior is ‘cyber-bullying’. Cyber-bullying can be defined as a person (or a group of people) using technology to repeatedly and intentionally use negative words and/or actions against a person, which causes distress and risks that person’s wellbeing.
There are many examples of cyber-racism on the Internet, from racist individual Facebook posts to group pages specifically set up for a racist purpose. An example of cyber-racism that gained considerable media notoriety was an Aboriginal memes Facebook page that consisted of various images of Indigenous people with racist captions. It was reported that Facebook had classified this memes page as ‘controversial humour’ despite the fact it was said to have depicted an entire race of people as ‘inferior drunks who sniff petrol and bludge off welfare’. It was further reported that while the creators of the page had ultimately removed the content, Facebook had not deleted the actual page (still classified as ‘controversial humour’).
There have been high profile cases of LGBTI young people being bullied and harassed online these have resulted in self-harm and suicide.
So that, in these cases, censorship is needed. Censorship of information on the Internet has become a much publicized debate that currently has no resolution in sight. There is a great controversy as to whether or not censorship is a necessity in order to maintain a particular moral standard. In the case that there should be a standard, what information should people have access to? As the Internet industry grows and expands almost daily, new issues of censorship and freedom of expression are arising.

So, as article 19(3) of The ICCPR permits limitations on the rights recognized in article 19(2), but those limitations must be: (1) provided by law and (2) necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

The requirement for limitations regarding freedom of information and expression to be ‘provided by law’ is an important guarantee of the rule of law. Respect for “public morals” is a permissible justification for restricting the right to freedom of expression and information, subject to compliance with the conditions provided in 19(3) of the ICCPR.
In recent time, hostile forces and political opportunists have pushed up their taking advantage of the issue of “freedom of press, freedom of speech, democracy, and human rights” to propagate, agitate, distort and counter the Vietnamese revolution and deteriorate people’s belief in the Party, the State and the regime. It is important for us to stay vigilant and lay bare their schemes.
Recently, the Freedom House published its “Freedom in the world 2015” report which ranked Vietnam among countries with no “freedom”. Earlier, some other organizations, namely “Committee to protect journalists” (CPJ) and “Reporters Sans Frontieres” (RSF) released their “reports” and “communique”, with distorted arguments, biased assessments and wrongful reflection on the freedom of press, freedom of speech, democracy, and human rights situation in Vietnam. They even blatantly calumniated Vietnam of the sentence of journalists, oppression and arbitrary arrest of bloggers. At the same time, they intervened into Vietnam’s internal affairs, demanded that Vietnam “abolishes” some articles in the Penal Code which in their opinion are “vargue and violate human rights” and called for unconditional release of the ones they called “journalists”, “human rights activists”, “bloggers”, etc.
This is clearly an irrational intervention into Vietnam’s internal affairs, an advocate for the dissidents and an unwilled view of those organizations over Vietnam’s democracy and human rights situation.
In the field of democracy and human rights, the State and the Communist Party of Vietnam have always attached importance to the promotion of democracy and human rights in all aspects of life. Human rights is of special concern and clearly perceived in the 2013 Constitution as it is mentioned in 38 articles and put second in the constitution  (Chapter II) right after political regime (Chapter I). It is written that the State “regcognizes, respects, protects, and guarantees human rights and citizens' rights in the political, civil, economic, cultural and social fields” and that “Human rights and citizens' rights may not be limited unless prescribed by law solely in case of necessity for reasons of national defense, national security, social order and safety, social morality and community well-being”.
Vietnam is an independent and freedom country. Its development course is decided by its own people. Vietnam will neither accept any intervention or arrangement from the external forces nor let anyone distort, vilify internal situtation or incite to cause chaos and hinder the country’s development. Those making use of the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, democracy and human rights to advocate for actions countering the national interests should think twice./.
Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 17 ]


John Smith 6/12/15 21:08

Moreover, these organizations often present “press freedom award” for those with dissident views against Vietnam.

Gentle Moon 6/12/15 21:09

Some journalists making use of the freedom of press, freedom of speech to spread their vilification against the State and the Communist Party of Vietnam.

LawrenceSamuels 6/12/15 21:10

It is clear that all of the cases quoted by FH, CPJ, RSF,…as evidence of violation of freedom, democracy and human rights in Vietnam, related directly to lawbreakers.

Deck Hero14 6/12/15 21:13

We have to stop those hostile elements that threaten our national security.

Pack Cassiopian 6/12/15 21:15

The incidence of homophobic cyber-bullying has increased greatly in recent years with the proliferation of online social networking tools.

Jane smartnic 6/12/15 21:16

There is a great controversy as to whether or not censorship is a necessity in order to maintain a particular moral standard.

Love Peace 6/12/15 21:17

The so called “reports” or “releases” of some organizations, including FH, CPJ, RFS are partial, and untrustworthy when they were based on just some individuals’ opinions to assess the comprehensive situation.

Only Solidar 6/12/15 21:18

It is important for us to stay vigilant and lay bare their schemes.

yobro yobro 6/12/15 21:20

In recent years, right after someones, who violated the law, were arrested and brought to trial for conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the FH, CPJ, RSF called them “democrats”, “independent writers” and gave out their distorted “annoucement” asking for the unconditional release of those people.

MaskOf Zero 6/12/15 21:21

It is clearly an irrational intervention into Vietnam’s internal affairs, an advocate for the dissidents and an unwilled view of those organizations over Vietnam’s democracy and human rights situation.

Thompson Catherine 9/12/15 06:10

internet offers much convinience but also causes many problems in the society, so I think we should control it to promote it's positive side and limit nagative affects

Anthony Jones 9/12/15 06:17

many countries have been leaded to chaos, even the regimes ousted by the internet such as in Midleast and North Africa countries

Davis Caroline 9/12/15 06:30

it's very difficult to control internet. almost goverments in the world have to face challenges that intetnet causes

Williams Melanie 9/12/15 06:32

many people take advantage of internet freedom to act against their goverment

Funny Day 9/12/15 06:34

some countries ban or limit the people to use internet for the national security

Elizabeth Green 9/12/15 06:36

The requirement for limitations regarding freedom of information and expression to be ‘provided by law’ is an important guarantee of the rule of law.

Jack Walker 9/12/15 06:39

Vietnam has been seen as one of the countries that have most internet users over the world

Your comments