Freedom cannot be defined and formulated as an abstract philosophical concept without referring to political life in which there are conflicting parties and ideologies with unequal power, authority and legitimacy.
Liberals have faced epistemological problems once they first adopted negative conception of freedom and liberty. It is because there is no fixed border between the one's line and another's one. They suggested simply that one's freedom ends in the border of another's freedom as if freedom was completely isolated individual space of thinking and acting, in other words, as if freedom did not has any social space.
Alternative conception was suggested as positive freedom and liberty that meant nothing but social and economic rights of citizens granted by the state legislation. However, here too, freedom is seen as possibility and condition for the citizens to use "negative freedoms" granted to them by state legislation.
The former was classical liberal conception while the latter was only social liberal or social democratic one that is seen more or less in all welfare states and societies.
Before going to the socialist meaning of freedom and liberty, let us recall the origin of debates and fights that are related with the origin of freedom of thought and expression. It was during the Enlightenment period first that this form of freedom was demanded. They were liberal intellectuals, journalists, scientists and philosophers who had to put into agenda this form of freedom. Bourgeoisie and its intellectuals were still in the stage of opposition, which wanted to circulate its thoughts and arguments against those of aristocrats, monarchs and clergy. Symbolic name is Voltaire among other Enlightenment thinkers.
The problem of freedom which was felt by those thinkers would be felt by other radical critical minds in the next centuries such as workers, their leaders, socialist intellectuals and academics.
It was clear that only opposition needed freedom of thought and expression. And, this fact is still valid in our day. Those who are not in the oppositional line do need such a freedom since they are already free and their thoughts are already dominant.
The ones who have radical, different, critical thought always need freedom of though and expression. They criticize existing dominant or sacred ideas, morality, ideologies, cultural forms or beliefs, and more significantly, existing social relations.
Therefore, the limit and framework of freedom is defined by the relative powers of opposition and the existing power holders. Self-confidence of the rulers may provide a free space for oppositional ideas and movements. Otherwise, the rulers obey to the ordinary ideas and living forms of the masses. A lack of self-confidence on the part of ruling class requires following the soul of the masses and thus, narrows the space of freedom of thought and expression as well as freedom of association, etc for the opposition.
Rather than pure and abstract philosophical theorizing, self-confidence of power holders and the power of opposition defines the limits and space of freedom in general.
American and European bourgeois states can easily adopt liberal democratic attitudes before the critical ideas and movements against traditional forms of morality and ideology, that is, religion. A citizen of them has a right to criticize or entertain Jesus or Bible or any politician. Accordingly, any of them can do the same thing for prophet Mohammed or Koran.
Secularization in the western societies and states have left nothing sacred, neither state, nor religion to criticize and entertain. This freedom is also ensured by the secular characteristics of citizens who have self-confidence about their individual sacred thoughts. Wherever sacredness exists, it is confined to individual sphere.
Theocratic states of the Middle East and Asia or religious people with secular states there, have still sacred ideas and institutions. Even if their states are "secular", majority of their citizens are not so as beliefs are not individualized.
Freedom of thought and expression in those countries confront the borders of state's security policies, of the aspiration of dominant ethnic groups, nationalist ideology, main religious faith and sects. Thus, there is no any abstract philosophical solutions to the definition of the sphere of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty in any kind is determined by the power of opposition and the self-confidence of the ruling class, which is related with its economic, political and ideological power as well as with its external security.
Finally, socialist conception of freedom and liberty, here as in the case of thought and expression, can be defined by the self-confidence and power of the working class and its intellectual leaders. Here again, we do not try to formulated fixed and abstract formulation about freedom and liberty. Socialism with its new social relations and state-government conception first sees the internal and external bourgeois opposition as the main threats to itself. Second, it meets any development against equality in any kind in the same way.
In sum, freedom of thought and expression is framed by the respective positions of the rulers and opposition, self-confidence of the former and the level of secularization process.
The question is not what can be thought, but is what thoughts can be expressed and circulated. Therefore, rather than abstract and fixed negative borders between isolated individual freedoms, nor social and economic supports to them, but, what thoughts and actions are admissible, tolerable for the ruling class to be able to ensure the support of the masses as it rules them.
And, the last thing to mention is the notion of equality. It is not a part of or alternative to freedom and liberty. Rather, freedom and liberty can be provided best through equal social relations.
Why do not we say, for example, equality of ability and right in thinking and expressing our thoughts like equality in association and action?
Is the question freedom and liberty or equality in our rights and abilities, that is our powers?
