Individual Self-Fulfillment -- Self Actualization
In the context of media law, self-actualization looks a little different from what a psychologist or sociologist would site it as. These fields would think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and societal pressure to force change onto the developing mental state. It states the layers are hit as a person grows, though they may never reach the later stages. It's more of a basis theory that branches into others, what I would consider to be a way of understanding the world. People grow and develop, they must challenge themselves to achieve self-actualization. Sociologically, this process will be helped or hindered by those surrounding you. This is certainly an aspect of the concept I will use to discuss free speech, but it doesn't encapsulate the missing piece--
--my interpretation with this lens of self actualization is finding, creating and building value in the self-- the ability to create coherent thoughts of one's own. This then applies to moving in the world as a person who can think for themselves and protect their own liberty. A large part of that is having the freedom to be able to speak, to be able to improve. If society was as rigid as some people want, where you can make no mistakes or say a 'wrong' thing, self actualization would be an impossibility. The development of internal character is based upon making mistakes and growing from that.
Without mistakes, without wrongdoing, there is no growth. If you exist in an echochamber where you only hear a singular perspective that insists upon its 'correctness' then you will never realize that there are other voices outside of that tunnel.
Personal identity in the current era can feel like an impossibility. We discussed in class how some European countries, Germany in particular, are taking actions that restrict 'harmful or offensive language'. Police are being mobilized from tweets. Looking deeper into this, it's not a single situation that escalated. It's a repeated effort that states, not implies, that free speech is secondary to saving people from even the idea of offense. Self actualization continues in its processes by challenge. As I said before, you can't live in a happy little bubble that sings all of your predisposed beliefs back at you. To actualize is to be challenged in mind, body and soul. The government doesn't exist to protect people from having their feelings hurt. Which implies that this stunt is instead indicative of something else.
The freedom to speak includes the offensive content that is trying to be banned. Whether it hurts people's feelings is irrelevant when considering the fact it is speech, not action nor incitement. That slippery slope that the European governments are teetering on is incredibly dangerous. What defines the wrong words? Would there be a list of banned words that no one can say? Things that affect society further, like being unable to act in certain ways. This discussion exists for the sole purpose of gaining control over the population. And it's not just Europe. All over the world, people are being cut off from speaking their truth, learning about new perspectives and are being put in echochambers intentionally. Controlled speech, or rather restrictive control is the bane of liberty and freedom itself.
Sources
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/c-edwin-baker/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383241976_Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs
https://www.thefire.org/news/60-minutes-and-vice-president-vance-put-europes-worrying-speech-restrictions-spotlight
No comments:
Post a Comment