Restricting Free Speech - Essay Example

Restricting Free Speech Freedom of speech or rather freedom of expression is the political right to communicate one’s ideas or opinions. While freedom of speech is used synonymously with freedom of expression, the latter includes all acts of seeking, receiving or imparting ideas or information, regardless of the medium use. In this case, it may entail the use of newspapers, the internet, radio, televisions, fliers, and so on. In most cases, governments restrict, with varying limitations, how citizens may express themselves. Some of the most common limitations of speech may be related to obscenity, right to privacy, slander, libel, sedition, pornography, fighting words, hate speech, incitement, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to be forgotten, public nuisance, public security, public order, classified information, oppression and campaign finance reform (Ditchfield 2004). There are those that support freedom of expression and believe that there should be no way the government should limit it. On the other hand, there are those that believe that freedom of expression may not be an exquisite idea of any community and that the government should limit the citizen from expression themselves or rather communicate their thoughts. This paper will be looking at the second scenario, why free speech should be restricted. The world is made up of a very diverse group of people. There are Africans, Asians, Europeans, Americans, Latinos, and so on. There are also several different races. In some unfortunate instances, there are people from particular races that believe they should not integrate with the other races as they are superior to them. Such groups of people have existed. If people were allowed to practice absolute freedom of expression, then it may turn out gruesome. People would be spouting racist, homophobic, nationalist, and very offensive views about others and on their defense, they would say that they are practicing ‘free speech’. This is not a very pleasant situation. With the freedom of expression, racial abuse still exists, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) legally exist and the Neo-Nazis prove particularly difficult to stop. All these are groups of people that preach contempt and hatred towards the minority group that spurs conflicts that sometimes lead to loss of lives (Kretzmer 2006). In reality, freedom of speech just exists to promote liberty among different groups of people. Unfortunately, there are those who do not realize this and most of the time misuse the freedom. Speech is an act just like any other acts, and if it could cause unnecessary harm, then it should be illegal. It should not be legal to incite people such that they cause physical harm to others. It is not right, whether in the legal sense or not, to verbally harass someone else. The freedom of speech should only exist to promote autonomy and other freedoms, but it should be limited if it is affecting the cohesion in the society (Fiss 1985). The freedom of speech is amongst the most misused components of civilization. On looking at the issues in the society, anyone will note countless instances of misinformation, dishonesty, and lies and these are definitely things that the society should never have to tolerate even under the supposed free speech. In other words, it is imperative that people are always held accountable for what they say and if such words were malicious or intended to stir the peace in the community and consequently bring about chaos or any form of unnecessary unrest. Absolute truth in any case is a phrase so sensitive that it makes those who understand its meaning nervous. In many ways, freedom of speech is essential and actually a desirable part of life. History itself teaches the people that human civilization and indeed the relations between them only advances when there is free exchange of intimacies, information, and ideas. If there were no freedom of speech to start with, it would be very difficult to bring the community together and change some social aspects that are limiting human advancement. With the freedom of speech, all these development is possible. In North Africa, for example, the leaking of government’s information brought down repressive regimes as the people now had a desire for speech and freedom (Ghannam 2011). The desire for the freedoms saw courageous people animated and flocking in the streets. Unfortunately, the freedom of expression that was practiced in the region was very detrimental at some point as it turned out to be corrosive. Instead of people in the region practice it responsibly, areas such as the media played a major role in worsening the situation. When the media is unconstrained, it leads to commentators inciting the public through using more inflammatory words. Another method of inciting people abused by the same media is using apparent ‘anonymous’ individuals who say hurtful and very hideous things yet some of which may not be true and makes people fearful, angrier, and very defensive. In other words, freedom of speech is often abused by people and more so the media bringing about a need to limit how much they can express that freedom. Freedom of speech needs to take note of being responsible. Sometimes there may be a need to air a given idea or to relay information to the people. Still, there should be a sense of judgment in that the source is questioned enough, and there is no doubt whatever is being relayed is credible. Credibility, however, should not be the only measure of identifying whether the piece is ideal for public consumption. The damage the unfettered exercise can cause should be assessed carefully and, therefore, a balance determined. There is, therefore, a perpetual struggle that is supposed to push the boundaries of what is ideal to say in a civilized society. In any case, the primary variables to consider are actually what and when to say it as that will greatly impact on how social cohesion, privacy, truth, reputation, and national security can be protected. In the discussion above, it is evident that freedom of expression is most definitely significant. Nonetheless, the paper has also discussed why and how this freedom of speech may be misused and thus lead to bringing instability to the society. When looking at the Arab Spring as mentioned in the case of North Africa, freedom of expression is a very important as it led to the people identifying where the governments were failing and why they should claim for respect for their rights. Unfortunately, the same media that was an effective tool to impart courage to the people and having them riot in the street asking that the regimes do change was the same media that was used wrongly to misinform the people and provoke the social cohesion among the people leading to having them turn against each other bringing about countless losses of lives. References Ditchfield, Christin. Freedom of Speech. New York: Children's Press, 2004. Fiss, Owen M. Free speech and social structure. Iowa L. Rev. 71, 1985 Ghannam, Jeffrey. Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011." Center for International Media Assistance 3, 2011. Kretzmer, David. Freedom of Speech and Racism. Cardozo L. Rev. 8, 2006. Read More