Freedom of Expression

What does 'freedom of expression' really mean? I am not sure it has a universal meaning.
Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. In the United Statess of America, the First Amendment to their Constitution bars the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech”.

The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

Freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. This I believe is very crucial in a democracy or any country professing to adhere to democratic principles.

The reason I am bringing this up is because we seem to be facing a storm in a tea cup in Malaysia. The former Prime Minister has lambasted the curent Prime Minister in the newspapers accusing of poor leadership, of scrapping projects that he had initiated before leaving office. He even mentioned that the present P.M. wasn't his first choice as a successor. That was a very personal attack on the current leadership but he is still able to go about his usual business today after saying that. How is that possible? Because the government respects freedom of expression? In your dreams. Simply because he is a 'Tun', a former Prime Minister and a 'Bumiputera'. If that kind of statement had come from an 'AH Chong' or a 'Muthusamy', the ISA would have been used and the said 'culprit' would be in a lockup somewhere.

In my opinion, Dr. Mahathir is not bringing up any issues of national interest or beneficial to the public regardless of race. He appointed the present P.M. even though he didn't get the majority votes. That doesn't say much for Dr. Mahathir's choices either. If he is serious about speaking out about wrongs in this country, he should speak out about the religious rights of the non-muslims which is fast eroding. Otherwise he should just retire gracefully and let the next generation deal with the current issues.