As the report declares freedom on one hand should not violate the rights of others on the other hand and be termed as democracy. This implies that there should be regulation of free speech on internet. However, this should not deny people the freedom of speech. This forms this documents base of argument that social media need to be treated as another public forum hence to be regulated accordingly.
According to the research findings balancing between the freedom of expression and promoting equal rights for the entire internet users is the key issue here. Democracy should bring equity to all people. This implies that people have their rights of freedom while at the same time they are restricted from violating the rights of others through what they post on internet. This raise a question on how can this equity be realized in the society. The best way to approach this whole issue is amending the existing law so as to define objectionable content. To begin with for the freedom of expression to be criminalized, it might not necessary be that the content is objectionable in the public’s perception. Precisely, it entails strong disagreements on dearly-held practices, habits, values and beliefs that fortification of the freedom of expression tend to matter most. The right to offend, shock and disturb is integral to freedom of expression’s right and not contradictory to it. All the attempts to define objectionable contentshould incorporate the fact that there is a critical difference between what the society consider objectionable, and what is objectionable from a legal perspective.