Libya
By Cassidy H. McLaughlin
I. Introduction
Libya, a small country located in northern Africa, is known for its desert oil reserves and prominent Arabic culture. While these aspects of Libya seem positive, leaders have constantly used them to manipulate the country into a state of constant turmoil. Libya has been ransacked with waves of violent political uprisings for over a century. As a result, civil liberties such as freedom of speech, expression, and press have been repressed in extreme ways. Often, citizens of Libya are punished or even killed for attempting to openly express their political beliefs and ideas. Reporters Without Borders, ranks Libya 143rd out of 180 countries on the freedom scale. This ranking is attributed to political unrest that is still very prominent in the country. In an article titled “Freedom in the World 2022” posted by Freedom House, the author ranks Libya’s overall freedom at nine out of 100. In other words, the article describes the country as having almost no freedom. Furthermore, the article adds that in 2021, two major administrations came together to form very fragile peace within the country. At first glance, this swap in leadership would indicate a change of trend in Libyan freedom. However, even though this effort was made, the trend of corruption in Libya is still prominent because armed forces use manipulation tactics to prevail over the intended political structure. When analyzing the basic rights of any citizen in a given country, it is important to consider laws regarding free speech and free press because they are directly related to an individual’s freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is necessary to take a deeper dive into the history of the Libyan government, free speech laws, free press laws, and how those are comparable to a free country like the United States.
II. Historical Background
Regarding Libyan history, this country has had a difficult road. As of 2023, Libya is home to just under 7 million citizens and known for the world’s largest reserve of oil, the consistent instability in the Libyan government has not been able to protect its own income. As a result, Libyan history is overflowing with rebellion and takeover. The earliest Libyan history takes place in the beginning of the 1700s under the Karamanli dynasty. According to Britannica, “the most significant event of the period was the foundation in 1837 of the Sanūsiyyah ”(Brown, Cordell). The article goes on to describe this as the birth of Islamic order in Libya which created a sense of structure and unity. Unfortunately, that feeling would be completely obliterated in the early 1920’s. According to an essay written in the Arab Studies Quarterly, Libya experienced genocide beginning in 1922 when Italians colonized, and fascists came into power. The article continues by asserting the fact that around 110,000 Libyans were uprooted from their homes and forced into concentration camps. Additionally, only 40,000 Libyans survived the camps after their liberation following World War II. After these tragic events, Libya experienced short-lived independence and an unexpected boom in the discovery of oil in the desert. Because of the country’s newfound source of income, and the current king’s inability to effectively rule, the country was left wide open for take-over. Predictably, in 1969, Mummuar Al-Gadahfi and his supporters deposed the Libyan king and assumed what would be the beginning of a long and oppressive dictatorship. From 1969 until 2011, Libyans were forced to believe in the Islamic faith, and were expected to act accordingly to its fundamental values. Additionally, Gadahfi was a spontaneous and erratic leader who through his actions showed little to no interest in the lives and liberties of Libyan citizens. This fact is especially true regarding speech, expression, press and protest which are fundamental rights of any human. Gadahfi exterminated any religion or race that did not fit into his regime and eliminated anyone who voiced disagreement. However, this did not stop Libyan citizens from continuing their fight with full force. According to the book, “A New Dawn,” Libyans relied on homemade weapons to fight their battles. The author explains that “[p]ickup trucks were transformed into armored vehicles, and portable launchers for firing old Russian surface-to-air missiles were cobbled together out of old pieces of drain pipe, the triggers made from hairdryers” (Pargeter 233). This long and bloody fight finally concluded in 2011 when a group of armed citizens disposed of Gadahfi and attempted to form some sort of stable government.
For the next seven years, two major political administrations in Libya fought for control. The Government of National Accord based in Tripoli, and the Interim Government affiliated with the House of Representatives based in the east, both desired to control the country. In 2014, the Constituent Assembly of Libya was created in order to begin forming a new constitution. In 2017, the committee finally released a draft of the new constitution which would protect the country from experiencing another dictatorship while also protecting civilian liberties. Although this seemed like a breakthrough, the draft was ultimately rejected because it did not serve interests held by the two opposing parties who held power. Finally, in 2021, the United Nations launched a support group which sought to assist Libya in creating a stable national government. Referring again to “Libya; Freedom in the World 2022” provided by Freedom House, the program worked to create a government consisting of “a prime minister and a separate 3-member Presidential Council ” (Freedom House Editors). Each council member representing Libya’s three historic provinces: Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan. In 2022, this new governmental structure was tasked with either revising or rejecting the 2017 draft in order to create an official Libyan Constitution. As of 2023, a draft has not yet been released. Furthermore, this unstable government continues to stand but does not serve citizens well. Opposing parties still use violent force in order to control the country. Without the presence of checks and enforcement, corruption and armed force primarily prevails over political structure.
III. Free Speech
Now that the most prominent events in the history of Libya have been discussed, it is appropriate to take a deeper dive into specific historical happenings regarding one of the most basic human rights: free speech. The first noteworthy, and possibly most horrific event involving speech and expression took place in 1980 and is commonly referred to as Gadahfi’s “cultural revolution”. According to BBC News, this event was incited in the late 1970’s by Gadahfi’s release of three different volumes worth of “The Green Book”(BBC News Editors). These volumes included social theory that completely rejected imported ideologies ranging from religious values to political structure. At the beginning of 1980, Gadahfi threw the cultural revolution into full effect. He forcefully removed families who openly refused to follow what he referred to as “homegrown Islamic values”(Editors of BBC News). Furthermore, if Libyan law enforcement did not follow orders to remove anyone who held values with foreign traces, they too were punished or even disposed of. BBC News reported that during this time, Gadahfi also managed to ensure that “politically unsound books [were] burned”(Editors of BBC News). The cultural revolution set the tone for how free speech and expression issues would be dealt with in Libya during roughly the next 30 years. Speech and expression against the current political system, and core Islamic values was absolutely not tolerated. Additionally, free speech of this kind often resulted in removal or even death.
This issue finally took its first steps toward partial resolution in 2011, leading into the next noteworthy event regarding free speech in Libya. According to Britannica, on Feb. 15, 2011, protesters held an anti-government rally in Benghazi, Libya. The article describes that the protest began on account of the arrest of Fethi Tarbel, who was a Libyan human rights attorney. During the rally, protestors demanded that Gadahfi step down from his position of rule, and release all prisoners who were indicted as a result of political speech. Despite initial efforts by Libyan security to end the rally, protestors were relentless and began to take control over Benghazi. This control was short lived however, because the demonstrators were soon met with lethal forces. According to the article, “Security forces and squads of mercenaries fired live ammunition into crowds of demonstrators”(Briticana Editors). In addition to this, military tanks, helicopters, and even planes were used to fire upon protesting citizens. This demonstration of force against citizens who were exercising freedom of speech and expression seemed to be the final straw for the rest of the country. The event at Benghazi resulted in condemnation from longtime supporters of Gadahfi, as well as human rights activists around the world. The slaughter at Benghazi also proved that Gadahfi’s political regime was not exactly what he had promised. Furthermore, this event was the main catalyst for Gadahfi’s overthrow later in 2011.
With this relentless and erratic leader out of the picture, Libyan citizens were able to begin forming a more stable government where free speech could be accepted and embraced. This attempted formation leads into yet another historical landmark for free speech in Libya. In 2012, the Libya Supreme Court met to review the country’s current laws prohibiting political speech. According to Human Rights Watch, the court declared that law 37/2012, which regarded the criminalization of political speech, was to be outlawed. This decision seemed to lessen the restrictions on Libyan speech but did not lift them completely. Other forms of speech that were not considered political still remained unprotected. The article goes on to say that on May 2, 2012, a new law was passed regarding political speech which prohibited the glorification of Gadahfi. This seemed to serve as a crystal-clear indicator that the country still had little regard for free speech as a basic human right.
As of 2023, over ten years later, Libya still does not enjoy freedom of speech and expression. This is partially because a stable government has not yet been established, and opposing sides still continue to fight for control. According to Human Rights Watch, nine men were arrested in 2022 after posting a seemingly forced apology on social media in which they took responsibility for being “atheist, areligious, secular and feminist”(Editors of Human Rights Watch). The men were faced with criminal charges and thrown in jail on account of a “cyberlaw”(Editors of Human Rights Watch), which was enacted less than a year prior to the incident. The cyberlaw made it possible for the Libyan government to fine or imprison citizens who expressed any idea online that could insinuate the overthrow of political or social systems. With opposing forces in Libya constantly attempting to gain control over each other, it has been made clear that laws previously enacted in an attempt to protect free speech have been ignored and have therefore become irrelevant. It seems that the Libyan government’s primary focus is still complete control in hopes for stability. Libya will not have hope for freedom of speech and expression until the country is able to secure a stable government and political system.
IV. Free Press
In addition to free speech, free press was yet another basic human right which was and continues to be violated in Libya. During the reign of Gadahafi, media outlets were censored to the point of complete bias. According to an article posted on a WordPress blog by a student at Pennsylvania State University, “In the past, all broadcasts focused on Gadahfi, his family and his regime.” (Coddington). This censorship was the primary reason for Libyan support of Gadahfi during most of his rule. Citizens were exposed to biased opinions, and were not able to hear or express utterances which went against the current regime. Private media outlets were completely outlawed, therefore speech against Gadahfi was not aired for decades.
For a short time after the fall of Gadahfi, private media outlets began to boom once again in Libya. News agencies were no longer restricted by law to portray a biased opinion on political leaders. Although conditions were obviously better than before, journalists and reporters still were not given complete freedom in what they were allowed to publish or air. Amnesty International describes in one online article that many news organizations found themselves in a state of “self censorship”(Editors of Amnesty International). Essentially, reporters were afraid to publish the truth in fear of retaliation from the government or even fellow citizens. The article goes on to cite the targeted shootings of two journalists in Libya during 2013. The first journalist, Ezzedine Kousad who was attacked in August of that year, was targeted, shot, and killed while driving his car in Benghazi. Kousad was a reporter for a popular broadcast in Libya at the time, called al-Hurra TV station. Another reporter, Radwan al-Gharyani who was the manager of Tripoli FM, was also shot and killed the following December in a residential neighborhood of Tripoli. Finally, the article includes an open fire on the offices of Libya Awwalan TV, which occurred the following February. These events give an accurate portrayal of media privileges for many years post-Gadahfi, and exhibit the fact that reporters were technically free to publish and broadcast as they please, however it was extremely unsafe to do so.
In Libya as of 2023, media privileges are still very much the same as they were in the early 2000s. Reporters are still afraid to publish anything that goes against the common conception of social, government, and political structure. According to Reporters Without Borders, this can be blamed on the fact that opposing government factions do not believe that true private media outlets exist. Instead, they often assume that the outlets who criticize them belong to the other party, and therefore target them. One specific and recent instance of a targeted journalist occurred on March 26, 2022 in Sirte, Libya. The Committee to Protect Journalists writes that Ali Al-Rifawi, a reporter for a local news channel, was abducted by security forces and held in captivity for over 100 days in an undisclosed location. Another instance of a recent assault on Libyan journalists occurred on Aug. 5, 2022. According to Article 19.org, journalist Mohamed Messaoud was attacked by security forces in Tobruk, Libya. He had recently been covering issues presented to the Tuburk-based parliament, and was targeted for reporting the truth instead of a biased opinion. The article goes on to say that the attackers beat Messaoud to the point of extreme bruising all over his body and face. Because of these instances, and many more which are similar, freedom of the press in Libya still remains almost non-existent and will probably not improve until government forces come together and create stability within the country.
V. Critical Comparison
By reflecting upon the lack of basic human rights in Libya both historically and currently, it becomes quite clear to see how the United States is a completely different atmosphere altogether. The United States is commonly thought to be the freest country in the world. Although this fact is not entirely true, citizens of the United States enjoy more freedom than many countries around the world. According to Reporters Without Borders, the United States ranks 42 out of 180 countries on the overall freedom scale. Considering that the United States was built upon principles of human liberty, its political structure primarily functions according to those values.
Free speech in the United States is one of the greatest liberties a citizen may enjoy. In the United States one may especially speak freely in regards to political figures and public matters. In Libya on the other hand, there has almost never been a time where free speech was allowed. Consider the “cultural revolution” launched by Gadahfi in Libya during the 1980s. This revolution not only rejected democracy completely, but also discarded any values that were not part of Islamic core beliefs. The reason that this event occurred was because the country did not possess legal protections and also lacked the willpower to stick to any laws which might provide protection. Decades later at Benghazi, Libyan citizens were executed for speaking out against Gadahfi and the horrible decisions he made as a leader. In the United States, situations like these are handled in a completely different manner. Foremost, the United States does possess the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, which explicitly protects what the country’s founders considered to be basic human liberties. Among those liberties is the freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment and is closely followed in the American judicial system. Take into consideration the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1969 regarding Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case involved Clarence Brandenburg who invited newscrews to a Ku Klux Klan meeting in Ohio. During this meeting, Brandenburg used highly offensive language to ridicule minority groups, and even made a threat to the American government involving what he considered to be mistreatment against the Caucasian race. This situation is similar to the event in Benghazi only because both involve free speech and ridicule from the people in the direction of the government. The similarities end, however, in the way that the two situations were handled. In Benghazi security forces who were following government orders killed countless Libyan citizens for speaking opinions considered to be “unpopular.” In America, Brandenburg v. Ohio was settled in favor of Brandenburg on grounds of the First Amendment, and a newly developed incitement test. Referred to as The Brandenburg Test, the U.S. The Supreme Court required that the speech does not direct toward, or incite, imminent lawless action. The Bill of Rights in America protects citizens from instances like Gadahfi’s “cultural revolution” and the event in Benghazi because the government and judicial systems are bound by it. In the First Amendment, freedom of speech and expression are explicitly protected. Furthermore, it blocks Congress’s ability to construct any laws which abridge basic human liberties. If Libya possessed a bill of rights and bound their government to that doctrine, then human liberties such as free speech could be protected.
Free press in the United States is another basic human liberty that is highly protected. In Libya on the other hand, there has never been complete press freedom. Take into consideration the two Libyan journalists, Mohamed Messaoud and Ali Al-Rifawi who were assaulted and kidnapped for reporting on government activity. In the United States, situations like this are handled in a completely different manner thanks to the First Amendment. One U.S. Supreme court case in 1971, New York Times Co. v. United States, involved Daniel Ellsburg who leaked top secret government documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post. In these documents was a study that statistically proved the current war in Vietnam to be ineffective and documented that multiple presidential administrations had lied to the American people about how the war was going. After receiving these documents, both newspapers wrote articles which revealed the truth to the American people. In contrast to the way the Libyan government would have handled this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of The New York Times and the American people’s right to be involved in government decision making. Justice Hugo Black in his concurrence recalled that James Madison constructed the American Bill of Rights to explicitly protect journalists so that they may inform the people. This Supreme Court case set a strong precedent for journalists and the people’s right to know. Again, it is necessary to note that Libya does not possess a bill of rights protecting the press, therefore the government is able to censor and control information in which Libyan citizens receive.
VI. Conclusion
Overall, the founders of the United States constructed the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from an overbearing government much like Libya’s. This is the one reason why the United States enjoys freedom in speech and press. The First Amendment has been used time and time again in the United States to protect and advocate for free speech and press so that citizens may form their own opinions and involve themselves accordingly. The fact that Libya lacks a bill of rights or any binding law to protect free speech and press is telling of why these horrible events were able to happen and will likely continue. In order to see change in Libya, it is important for the country to construct binding laws that protect citizens and their civil liberties from an oppressive government.
This essay was last updated on April 30, 2023.
Works Cited
Brown, Carl and Dennis Cordell. “Ottoman Rule”, Britticanna, Libya – History | Britannica,
Accessed March 7, 2022.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Libya Revolt of 2011”. Encyclopedia
Britannica, 8 Feb. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011. Accessed 28 March 2023.
Coddington, Elizabeth. Libya and Morocco, Pennsylvania State University/ WordPress, 8
Dec. 2014, https://sites.psu.edu/worldlywomen/media-structures/.
“Freedom In the World 2022” Freedom House, 2022, Libya: Freedom in the World 2022
Country Report | Freedom House, Accessed March 7, 2022.
“Middle East | Analysis: Gadahfi’s Revolution.” BBC News, BBC, 6 Feb. 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1154311.stm.
Moughrabi, Fouad. “Genocide in Libya: Shar, a Hidden Colonial History.” Arab Studies
Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 4, Fall 2021, pp. 371–75. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.txstate.edu/10.13169/arabstudquar.43.4.0371.
“Libyan Journalists Threatened by Rival Militias.” RSF,
https://rsf.org/en/libyan-journalists-threatened-rival-militias.
“Libya: Law Restricting Speech Ruled Unconstitutional.” Human Rights Watch, 28 Oct.
2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/14/libya-law-restricting-speech-ruled-unconstitutional.
“Libya: Security Forces Must Face Prosecution for Attacking Journalists.” ARTICLE 19, 18 Aug.
“Libya: Three Years on, Gadahfi-Era Laws Used to Clamp down on Free Expression.” Amnesty
International, 23 June 2021, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2014/02/libya-three-years-Gadahfi-era-laws-used-clamp-down-free-expression/.
Pargeter, Allison. Chapter 8 A New Dawn. Yale University Press, 2017. EBSCOhost,
https://doi-org.libproxy.txstate.edu/10.12987/9780300184891-011.
Spicer, Sarah. “Libyan Journalist Ali Al-Rifawi Detained since March after Reporting on
Corruption.” Committee to Protect Journalists, 21 Apr. 2022, https://cpj.org/2022/04/libyan-journalist-ali-al-rifawi-detained-since-march-after-reporting-on-corruption/.
United States, Supreme Court. Brandenburg v. Ohio. 1969. Thomson Reuters Westlaw.
United States, Supreme Court. New York Times Co. v. United States. 1971. Thomson Reuters Westlaw.
“World Report 2023: Rights Trends in Libya.” Human Rights Watch, 12 Jan. 2023,
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/libya.
Free Speech and Free Press Around the World 