The Boundary Between Freedom of Expression and Legal Regulation: Misunderstandings of Law and Morality and Their Dangers
In modern society, debates regarding freedom of expression are becoming increasingly heated, with discussions on the regulation of sexual and violent content, in particular, attracting significant attention. However, what is often seen in these debates is a tendency to confuse law and morality, where the regulation of expression is perceived as a moral obligation. If legal regulation proceeds without understanding that law is merely a means to maintain social order, while morality is based on the values of individuals and society, the result will be to permit unjust interference by those in power.
The Essence of Freedom of Expression and Legal Regulation
Freedom of expression, as the right to express one's thoughts and beliefs externally, forms the foundation of a democratic society. Guaranteeing this freedom is essential for providing a space for social diversity and healthy debate. Regulation of freedom of expression is usually carried out under the pretext of protecting public safety and order, but its content is often heavily influenced by those in power.
A common reason cited for legal intervention in expression is that "inappropriate content" or "expression that disturbs public order" is viewed as problematic. However, if such regulation goes too far, one eventually faces the question of who decides "what is inappropriate?" In such cases, moral standards are often invoked, and instances where expression is restricted on the grounds that it is "offensive" or "immoral" are increasing. However, morality is something that always changes with the times, and using it as a basis for regulation carries risks.
The Confusion of Law and Morality and Its Dangers
Confusing law and morality is a cause of excessive regulation of expression. Law is the minimum set of norms necessary to maintain social order, and its content is always subject to the intentions of those in power. On the other hand, morality is based on the values of individuals and social groups and depends on a certain social consensus, but it is not absolute. In other words, following the law does not necessarily mean being moral.
The standards considered "moral" in expression are, in reality, nothing more than the values of the power holders or the social majority at any given time. For example, at certain times, sexual or violent expression may be deemed "immoral" and its regulation justified, but if those values change with the times, past regulations will easily be seen as unjust. Thus, proceeding with regulation based on morality is nothing more than forcing the dominant values of the moment onto others.
Furthermore, as regulation in the name of morality progresses, freedom of expression is increasingly restricted, eventually threatening even freedom of speech and freedom of art. For example, there is a history of films and books being censored in the past for being "immoral," which caused a chilling effect on free creative activities.
The Limits and Problems of Zoning Theory
In discussions about the regulation of expression, "zoning theory" often appears. This is the idea of dividing content into categories such as "for children" or "for youth" and applying regulations accordingly. However, there is a major problem with this approach. It is extremely dangerous to simply evaluate the content of expression on a gradient and label it as "inappropriate." Expression is often complex and multi-layered, and it cannot be classified by a single standard.
For example, there is a danger that content containing sexual or violent expression will be excluded entirely as inappropriate simply by being labeled "for adults." However, many such works hold cultural and social significance. Conversely, "for children" content, by being deemed harmless, may impose an excessively idealized worldview or educational message, which could in turn distort children's sense of reality.
By promoting zoning, expression is confined to specific frameworks, and creators are forced to comply with those frameworks. This effectively leads to a strengthening of power's intervention in freedom of expression.
Counterarguments to Objections
As a counterargument to this position, the following opinion can be considered: "Regulation of expression is necessary to maintain social order, and there is concern that extreme expression may affect minors." However, this claim contains a significant misunderstanding.
First, while the concern that expression has a negative impact on minors is often voiced, in reality, if regulation is excessive, the targeted expression may conversely appear even more attractive. Also, by regulating expression, the opportunity to understand the multi-layered meanings and values that the expression holds is lost. For example, if a film or literary work containing sexual expression is deemed inappropriate for minors, they become unable to receive the social and cultural messages that the work is trying to convey.
Furthermore, as excessive regulation progresses, creators are forced to choose "expression that avoids regulation," which undermines the diversity and freedom of their work. We must not forget that freedom of expression is an essential value for society as a whole, even if it is offensive to some people.
Conclusion
Careful discussion is needed to ensure that law and morality are not confused. Freedom of expression is the foundation for protecting social diversity and ensuring freedom from arbitrary intervention by power. As legal regulation advances, freedom of expression is ultimately threatened, resulting in the hindrance of the cultural evolution of society as a whole. Regulation based on morality being directly reflected in law carries a high risk of justifying power and causing social stagnation. To protect freedom of expression, we should respect the diversity and freedom of expression itself.