Freedom of expression was a polarizing subject in 2015, sparking media stories and public debate

all over the world, with some parties arguing for a universal legal standard and others calling for
limits to freedom of expression, or at least claiming that an absolutist concept of free speech is
impractical in todays complicated world.
Salman Rushdie anticipated these concerns as early as 2012, saying that his 1988 novel, The
Satanic Verses, might not get published now, because theres a lot of fear and nervousness
around. For Rushdie, the question is simple: can a book be published? And is there an immediate
threat to its author or its supporters (publishers, critics, and translators)? In short, the challenges to
freedom of expression now are not so much philosophical or religious but are more practical in
nature.

RELATED STORIES:

PW issue Contents

More in Opinion -> Soapbox

Want to reprint? Get permissions.

FREE E-NEWSLETTERS
Enter e-mail address

PW Daily

Tip Sheet

More Newsletters

Saudi blogger Raif Badawi was convicted and sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for
his writing. Saudi writer Ashraf Fayadh was convicted in 2008 for his volume of poetry Instruction
Within and sentenced to four years in prison and 800 lashes. Recently, Fayadhs sentence was
changed in the Saudi courts to death by decapitation.
Nevertheless, at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2015, the International Publishers Association
voted to welcome as new members the publishers associations of Saudi Arabia and Chinatwo
countries with restricted freedom of speech. This means that the IPAs prestigious Freedom to

Publish Award will now be cosponsored by the publishers associations of these two countries, in
addition to all the other members.
The IPA expressed its reasoning for admitting the two countries with this statement: Commitment
gives us a chance to support our colleagues, whereas nonengagement brings nothing.
Admittedly, it is not a clear-cut case. The IPA is actively lobbying with Saudi authorities in support of
both Badawi and Fayad, and the impact of this lobbying must not be underestimated, given the few
channels for such interaction that remain open. And IPAs president, Richard Charkin, of Bloomsbury
UK, has recently protested loudly against the disappearance of some Hong Kongbased publishing
professionals, in which Chinese authorities are suspected of being involved.
There are many good reasons why governments and international organizations should maintain
open conversations. But there are also sound arguments for nongovernmental organizations to be
selective about whom they choose to engage with. And there is always ground for scrutiny when
governments intervene directly in cultural and artistic creation and expression.
The IPA, thus far, has no written guidelines in its statutes defining which countries can participate.
The controversy surrounding the decision to accept both Saudi Arabia and China as new members
in 2015 highlights the importance of having such a statute.
In Poland, the new government, just a month after gaining power, has chosen a theatrical
performance as a battleground over the role of the state in determining freedom of expression. A
theater in Wroclaw was rehearsing the play The Death and the Maiden by Nobel Laureate Elfriede
Jelinek when Adam A. Kwiatkowski, the new minister of culture and the deputy prime minister, called
for the suspension of the production days before the opening, saying he suspects that the actors are
porn actors and noting that the theater received government subsidies. For clarity, it must be noted
that many theaters in continental Europe are dependent on such public money. Crucially, the
intervention was not due to a breach of Polish law, but as Kwiatkowski explained, for breaking
commonly accepted rules of social coexistence.
The point is that when informal commonly accepted rules gain the upper hand over law and
independent justice, we have lost the protections of constitutional rule. The legal norms under attack
have evolved over time, materializing in a broad consensus. Replacing them with vague commonly
accepted rules of social coexistence is not an acceptable formula for todays complex societies.
Ruediger Wischenbart is a consultant based in Vienna who specializes

After almost three weeks of extensive, well-articulated and coherent arguments from both sides, the
debate Freedom of expression gives one the right to insult came to an end. Since the commencement,
the voting statistics have been inclined towards the opposition and 81% of the participants in the end
have sided against the motion, represented by Dr. James Doig, concluding that freedom of expression
does not give one the right to insult. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to ignore the remaining 19% of

participants views siding with Ms. Hilary Stauffer in favor of the motion. Even though the debate
concluded against the motion, we were still able to learn and explore this timely issue from various
perspectives. In doing so, there was some common ground between the two sides. Likewise, the
productive reasoning brought forward some important arguments and factual evidence that broadened
the understanding of our audience, who followed and participated in the debate with great zest.

No matter how old you are now. You are never too
young or too old for success or going after what you
want. Heres a short list of people who accomplished
great things at dif
You can not have success without dealing with problems.
Look for your opportunity in every difficulty instead of being paralyzedat the
thought of difficulty in every opportunity.
Each new experience brings with it the seed of your success. Even your current
difficulties have within them opportunity.
Welcome your problems as opportunities. Each moment is your greatest
challenge and the best thing that ever happened to you.
The more difficult your problem, the greater the challenge in working it out.
When it's dark enough, you can see the stars.

When Albert Einstein had a difficult problem to

solve, he tried to see the opportunity of learning
something new while he was working on the
solution to his problem. Since he was a curious
scientist, he had some knowledge in different
fields, but he knew he wasn't an expert in all of
them. When he was trying to write his theory of
general relativity, he took the opportunity to ask
mathematicians and physicists that he knew to
review his work. He was glad to get other
scientists' ideas and opinions on the problem. He
didn't allow himself to feel like he was at a dead
end, and that he would never solve his problem.
Instead, he saw the chance to look at the problem
in a different way. He knew he could learn more
about advanced mathematics or light or astronomy
by asking his scientist friends. Einstein's idea was
that anyone should try to see the opportunities for
learning from problems that have not been solved
yet.

I think the quote means that first of all, you should

not feel stuck when you are in a difficult situation.
You should think to yourself, "Why am I having
such a hard time figuring this out? What am I
missing? Who can I ask who knows something
about this? Maybe I can find out the information
myself?" Asking yourself these questions will start
to show you that the problem might not be so bad
after all! It could be interesting talking to someone
who knows a lot more about the problem than you
do. The first person you ask might recommend a
second friend, and that person might direct you to
a third friend. Without realizing it, it turns out that
you have made three...