Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Freedom of speech seems an inalienable human right that cannot be restricted or taken away because it determines the ability to express and broadcast opinions and experiences. In reality, however, freedom of speech cannot be unlimited because individuals live in a society that sets the limits of acceptable speech. It is recognized that free speech must be restricted if an individual’s words are harmful to public health or affect the freedoms of another person. This essay assesses the significance of adequately limiting free speech for modern society.
Humanity has struggled throughout history to figure out what is meant by free speech and what the limits of what is permissible are. The origins of the concept of freedom of speech go back to ancient Greece, where the first principles of a democratic society were formulated (Shammas, 2019). Already in new times, in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, postulating the inalienable rights of individuals to protect the dignity of the individual (Balsera, 2019). Freedom of speech should be understood as the moral and political fundamental right of the individual to freedom of expression and opinion without fear of persecution by government or opposition groups (Kendrick, 2018). Thus, freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions virtually unhindered and feel safe.
In reality, however, freedom of speech must be limited because it may conflict with the community’s moral values. It is well known that an individual’s freedom ends where another’s freedom begins (BRI, 2021). Hence, freedom of speech cannot imply insulting or humiliating others because punishment would follow. Furthermore, the expression of sharply radical, unacceptable ideas to the community is also a negative characteristic of free speech because it allows painful ideas to spread. For example, encouraging the 9/11 attacks and rejoicing over the deaths of thousands of people while reflecting freedom of speech is a publicly condemned morality and signifies support for terrorists.
On the other hand, there is the opposite view. Restricting freedom of speech is not acceptable because it inhibits the individual’s creative expression and creates conditions for the monopolization of opinions. Restriction of freedom of speech is associated with the action of propaganda and the enforcement of a single paradigm in the end. For example, the example of the execution of Giordano Bruno, who openly opposed erroneous public opinion even though he was right, is illustrative (Krylov, 2021). In this case, the restriction of freedom of speech served to make a historically incorrect, biased decision.
It is important not to substitute concepts and understand that allowing absolute freedoms of speech can lead to anarchism and wars. Restricting free speech allows nations to remain stable, as with ecclesiastical society in Bruno’s era. Moreover, the individual’s creative expression is not realized through insulting others or adhering to radical views, for this leads to the destruction of society. Thus, a restriction is a forced measure aimed at ensuring public safety.
References
Balsera, M. B. (2019). Human rights: Universal, inalienable and indivisible. Actionaid. Web.
BRI. (2021). Bill of Rights (1791) [PDF document]. Web.
Kendrick, L. (2018). Use your words: On the” speech” in” freedom of speech”. Michigan Law Review, 116(5), 667-704.
Krylov, A. I. (2021). The peril of politicizing science. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 12(22), 5371-5376. Web.
Shammas, V. L. (2019). The parrhesia of neo-fascism. International Journal of Žižek Studies, 13(3), 1-14.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.