The paper aims to refute all arguments against freedom of speech and provides arguments against any restrictions on freedom of speech in certain countries like Canada.
Freedom of speech provides people with different views about life, political condition, people, education, society and the whole world. This freedom is not aimed to defame anyone or anything but people provide their deepest thoughts and perceptions about different issues. These varying ideas and opinions provide the uninformed with a wide range of possibilities and sufficient grounds to make their own judgement. Hence freedom of speech, in this context, must remain untied with restrictions and laws. The criticism against freedom of speech is the fact that people may use this right in order to defame other people, develop controversies and negatively change people’s arguments. The criticisers believe that restrictions must be imposed in order to protect people’s privacy and reputation from the abusers of this freedom. The justification to their criticism is the increasing debates over political, social and religious issues. The increasing conflicts and worsening law and order situation provide them with the chance to stand against such freedom.
In my opinion, all these arguments are, to a great extent, baseless. Milton describes in Areopagitica two kinds of people: the prudent ones and others who are imprudent. Prudent class of people are able to distinguish between good and bad, reasonable and unreasonable; imprudent, on the other hand, are unaffected by any judgements. In other words, we may say that prudent class has the power to analyze, asses and judge every event, claim or argument; whereas, imprudent do not have their own opinion and they lack the power of expressing and judging. Hence, imprudent remain unaffected by the opinions and expressions of others and prudent accept the claims only if they have any instance of truth in them. Moreover, it is