Liberia: Free Speech and Accountability – the Intersection of Criticism and Contempt in the Courts

I hailed the Supreme Court: The Liberian Supreme Court was right in its “Guilty Contempt Verdict.”: Must be applauded by all air-breathing, well-meaning Liberians who believe in the respect for Women.

No more ‘Ma Cuss'(No more abuse of our Dear Mothers, Sisters, Wives, Daughters, Female Lovers, and/or Female Friends-Relatives). Any Mouth(woman, girl, boy, man, any air-breathing human being) who abuses (cusses-(you know the cuss that I am talking about)) a female should be legally held to answer through a competent court of jurisdiction.

“Never forget that insult(ma cuss or going gutter)is not in the sale store. You need not buy it; open your 32, and it will flow out. Others choose not to engage in such behavior. That is not a weakness but an intellectual stance, and respect for the dignity of air-breathing human beings”.

Just as it is a crime to yield “Fire” in a public place without seeing “Fire, ” it should be a crime to insult the private part of a woman in any given area.

Respect, Respect, Respect, Respect for “WOMAN-WOMEN” is (should be)a must.

Free speech is a foundational democratic pillar often deemed essential to liberty, though it is not absolute and is subject to limits on misuse and judicial authority.

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins” — Benjamin Franklin.

“The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”– Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

“Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day; the denial slays the life of the people and entombs the hope of the race.” — Charles Bradlaugh (via Alumni for Free Speech).

“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.” — Frederick Douglass.

“The state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. You’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears.” — Goodreads.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that while citizens can freely speak, write, and print on any subject, they are responsible for abusing that liberty.

James Iredell suggested that criticizing the misuse of the press is a way to uphold its freedom.

By: Austin S Fallah – A True Son of the Planet Earth Soil: A Student of Modern Contemporary Law: fallahas@yahoo.com.

In contemporary society, the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring accountability for contemptuous actions remains a contentious issue across jurisdictions.

The recent case in Liberia, where the Supreme Court held an individual in contempt for directing repeated invectives at the Chief Justice and the judiciary, shines a spotlight on this complex intersection.

Recognizing that the United States’ legal framework heavily influences Liberian law, this korero will argue that while criticism of the judiciary is a necessary component of a healthy democracy, it can cross the line into contempt when it undermines public respect for the legal system.

By examining this case alongside analogous situations in other nations, particularly the United States, we will explore the applicable legal principles and the implications for the right to free speech.

Understanding the Case: Context in Liberia:

On the surface, the case involving the Liberian Supreme Court illustrates the perennial dilemma faced by courts worldwide: how to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary while simultaneously upholding citizens’ rights to free speech.

In Liberia, the judiciary emphasized that the individual’s spoken and written attacks not only belittled the Chief Justice but also subjected the entire judiciary to ridicule and disrepute.

The Court’s position raises pertinent questions about the boundaries of free speech, as outlined in the Liberian Constitution, which echoes the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In analyzing the contempt charge issued by the Liberian Supreme Court, one must recognize that judicial institutions must maintain a level of dignity necessary to their operation.

If unchecked, vitriolic critiques can foster a culture of distrust, leading to wider societal implications, such as a compromised rule of law and the erosion of legal safeguards.

While free expression is foundational in a democratic society, it is not an absolute right and does not shield individuals from the consequences of speech intended to undermine judicial authority.

Comparative Analysis with the United States:

The American legal system provides a rich tapestry of cases concerning free speech and contempt, which can serve as useful points of reference for analyzing the Liberian case.

In the landmark case of “Brandenburg v. Ohio” (1969), the US Supreme Court established that speech advocating for illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless it incites imminent lawless action.

This principle encourages robust political discourse and critique of government action, underscoring that the vulnerability of democratic institutions lies in their ability to tolerate dissenting voices.

However, the Court has also underscored the need for respect towards judicial authority.

In “In re McConnell” (2005), a federal judge’s contempt ruling against a prominent attorney for disparaging remarks during a court proceeding demonstrated the balance that courts strive to maintain between respect for the judiciary and free expression.

Here, the statement, although critical, was deemed detrimental to the courtroom’s decorum and thus unacceptable.

Unlike the U.S., where the standard for contempt requires a clear and present danger to a court’s ability to function, Liberia’s interpretation of contempt appears to focus more on perceived respect and dignity for the institution.

This divergence signals a potential cultural conflict over freedom of expression and societal expectations of judicial authority.

The Broader Implications of Contemptuous Speech:

The problem of contemptuous speech is not unique to Liberia or the United States; many democracies wrestle with similar challenges.

In countries like India, the world’s largest democracy, courts have penalized individuals for comments deemed disrespectful to the judiciary.

For example, the case of “S. M. A. Zahir” (2003) saw the Indian Supreme Court deem a lawyer’s insults directed at a judge contempt, underscoring the importance of maintaining a respectful judicial culture.

This inclination to maintain judicial dignity can create a push-and-pull between public discourse and the judiciary’s expectations.

In the United Kingdom, the case of “Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd” (1973) showcased the delicate balance between the right to report judicial proceedings and the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Here, the judge restrained publication of a story implicating him in a scandal, highlighting the court’s prerogative to protect its institutional reputation.

Ultimately, these cases, with their varied outcomes, reveal that while the central principle of free speech may be universal, its application often depends on cultural norms surrounding respect for authority.

The Liberian situation illustrates a collision between deeply held values about the judiciary’s reverence and equally pressing concerns about the public’s ability to hold powerful institutions accountable.

The Conundrum of Accountability:

The overarching question arises: should citizens be permitted to speak ill of the judiciary without facing repercussions?

Advocating for free speech, in principle, extends to the judiciary as well.

Complaints against judicial behavior can serve as a vital check on power.

In this context, it is paramount to weigh the motivations behind incendiary remarks.

If directed by a genuine pursuit for accountability, such criticism deserves a more considered approach than outright condemnation.

Judicial authority, much like any powerful institution, requires oversight from the citizenry.

Thus, while free speech laws may facilitate criticism, accountability mechanisms remain vital to ensure that those who rely on judicial authority do not feel cowed into silence.

Pushing the boundaries of expression to investigate and critique potentially flawed systems does not inherently signify contempt; rather, it embodies the essential characteristics of a vibrant democracy.

Striking the Right Balance:

What remains critical in any discussion of contempt and free speech is the need for a balance, an equilibrium(as economists will say)whereby constructive critique is allowed to flourish while safeguarding against vitriol that seeks to undermine judicial integrity and public confidence in the rule of law.

The Liberian Supreme Court’s approach seems to underscore that distinction yet raises questions about the proportionality of its response.

Transparency and access to information play significant roles in managing contempt.

Empowering individuals and civil society to engage in nuanced discussions about judicial conduct could mitigate instances that lead to contempt charges.

For instance, a legislative framework emphasizing responsible reporting on judicial matters may serve both as a safeguard for the judiciary and as an avenue for citizens to raise valid concerns.

That was not the case with the recent Supreme Court case of “Contempt”.

Furthermore, leaning on education as a tool to foster respect for judicial institutions while simultaneously encouraging critical thinking may bridge the gap between respect and accountability.

Court officials and legal educators can champion initiatives that promote understanding of both citizens’ rights to critique and the responsibilities that accompany that freedom.

The interplay of free speech and contempt in the judicial context remains a challenging landscape to navigate.

The Liberian Supreme Court’s recent contempt charge serves not only as a critical case study in its own right, but it also illustrates the broader implications of how societies value and negotiate free speech against the backdrop of institutional respect.

While citizens must retain the right to express their thoughts on judicial actions, a clear distinction must be drawn between constructive criticism and contemptuous speech intended to subvert societal trust in the legal framework.

This dilemma invites ongoing dialogue and engagement in how best to ensure the accountability of judicial systems while preserving the essential freedoms that lie at the heart of democratic values.

In a world that globally grapples with these fundamental issues, reaching consensus on them will ultimately enhance not only legal systems but also the very fabric of society.

By New Dawn.