A country that preaches the defense of human rights, but suppresses freedom of speech, is confused about democracy.

There cannot simultaneously exist defense of human rights, with an absense and supression of free expression of thought, wish, protest, and other speech. Speech is the fundamental way in which wrong-doing can be decried. It must be used and should be followed by coresponding action or deliberate inaction, to achieve and end.

Free speech is not, a license to slander and falsely witness. It is rather, a practice of civil duty for all who desire freedom, in the interest of preserving it, promoting progress, securing human rights, and engaging in the enjoyment of communicating with one another.

In private communications, free speech earns and affords the protection of privacy too – as a component of democracy; so that welcomed exchanges can occur in greater safety, between persons who have a mutual desire to share in that privacy and intimacy. Communication that is private, does not welcome those who are not invited, into the relationship of privacy, which human rights preserve as a legal and defendable freedom.

Human rights laws also must afford persons protection from exploit and unwanted advances. This higher degree of privacy is different than a more meager level of privacy – for instance, for that which exercising free speech in a public way reaches masses or groups of people. Publishings, are understood to be a forum for communication that is more limited in privacy; and suited for reaching friends but also strangers… or for those comunications which are not limited to the engaging in intimate communications. Whereras a phone conversation, emails, letters, home privacy, personal meetings, etc. are widely understood in societies, to be protected by greater privacy. Or, so should the case be.