Should the State put limits on Free Speech?
Speech代写 Freedom of speech protects the right of individuals to express their opinion and ideas freely without any fear of retaliation (Article 10).
Freedom of speech protects the right of individuals to express their opinion and ideas freely without any fear of retaliation (Article 10).
Freedom of speech gives the right general public to raise their voice via publishing articles, leaflets or books, radio broadcasting, television, artworks, or through any social media and internet. The Law of free speech also protects the freedom of people to receive information from people or any other source such as reading a newspaper, watching the news, etc. (Equality Human Rights) The first amendment of the US constitution also protects the rights of free speech (US Courts). In this essay, I argue that free speech should be restricted when it is used to promote regressive ideas which ultimately leads to violence and spread hatred among the communities. The survey of most of the countries gives the idea to explicitly recognize the right of free speech as a fundamental or constitutional right.
However, it is not absolute, all of the countries should apply the limitations to free speech at varying levels or when it is used to promote regressive ideas targeting a particular ethnic group or community. For instance, the state should limit free speech in the context of geographical content (as restrictions on this matter were found in Ukraine and China) and prohibitions on deliberations and commotion of public speech (Levush). Freedom of speech is important as it is considered a core value in a democratic society. People are being able to discuss debate and exchange ideas. It supports the development and growth of informed voters and citizens.
However, it is also misused by the radical groups which used their regressive ideas to spread hatred and extremism among people. Speech代写
This topic is important because most people criticize the limitations on freedom of speech, however, this law is not absolute and it does not protect against incitement to violence and hate speech. The essay will demonstrate the arguments in support of thesis statements. Some arguments have been integrated which support the thesis statement then counter-arguments will allow the critical analysis of the primary arguments, at last, there will be replies to counter-arguments.
Sometimes free speech may lead to the endangerment of others around us. It may encourage the individual to act aggressively to another based on stigmatized ideas. The US government has not yet defined the laws to subdue hate speech. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that laws against hate speech could violate the right to free speech as mentioned in the First Amendment of the US constitution. Thus, we can say that hateful notions are being protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. This profoundly means that an individual is free to condemn Muslims, Islam, Christians, whites, blacks, Asians, or native citizens, as he is to condemn industrialization, communism, capitalism, or socialism (Volokh). Most of the liberal democracies today give protection to free speech or hate speech in their constitution. Speech代写
The reason behind it is that hate speech is difficult to distinguish from political speech that is protected by liberal democracies.
“The harm is not caused by the speech but the speech itself constitutes the harm” (Barendt). A free speech which causes harm might be similar to a harmful act such as environmental degradation, a physical or sexual assault which is not even protected by the laws in the support of freedom of speech. This free speech when becomes hate speech could cause huge psychological damage to the members of the group which is targeted. It could cause a breakdown in harmonious community relations and sometimes explicitly leads to violence among communities (Barendt). It must be noted that our norms do not explicitly emanate from the constitution and laws. Thus, constitutionally protected violation of our norm could lead to detrimental outcomes and freedom of speech which is based on hate speech is one of such violations.
“Now that Trump is president, I’m going to shoot you and all the blacks that I can find”, these are the words of 12 years old girl (Elster). During the election of the candidate organized by the Ku Klux Klan, around 437 sexist, xenophobic and racist incidents occurred among which the majority of the groups were those which were targeted by Trump during his campaign. These groups include LGBTQ, people of color, immigrants and other minorities. It would not be inappropriate to say that the use of extreme rhetoric in Trump’s speeches led to those incidents (Elster). These are a few of the consequences of free speech by the US government. Free speech which produces harm in society is actually hate speech. The founders of Twitter and Facebook have been pretending for years that obnoxious speech on social media does not lead to physical violence. Rifles, stones or sticks could cause harm but the internet will not harm us.
Nobody agrees with these convictions or assumptions anymore. Speech代写
Since, social media fuels campaigns of Narendra Modi, Donald Trump and the massacre in Christchurch mosque New Zealand, everyone knows the harmful impact of free speech on social media. Thus, it is profound that hateful words on social media are leading to real-world violence (Marantz). If the harmful impacts of speech outweigh its positive effects that it will become hate speech and requires some sort of regulation. Goldberg (2016), argued that the courts are required to restrict free speech consequentialism by considering the harms of the speech by evaluating those harms first. The speech-related harms which come as a result of free speech protection are emotional distress, violence stirred in the audience, reputation damage and privacy intrusions. Many scholars have criticized free speech jurisprudence as it is dismissive to harm it causes to others (Goldberg).
The preceding paragraph sheds light on the endangerment caused by free speech which eventually leads to violence, in this paragraph, we will analyze the counterargument regarding the harmful effects caused by free speech. Restricting free speech does not change the values of those who would express hate speech. They will continue to believe what they will. Those who are against free speech actually take for granted the value of free speech. Free speech is important it is valuable because its restraint could restrict the freedom of the free state. Just think about the countries with a ban on free speech for a while which include North Korea, Israel, Myanmar, etc. Are these countries free of violence despite the ban on free speech? No. Myanmar has a long history of violence and oppression, likewise, Israel and Palestine are perpetually under war for the past few decades. Speech代写
Thus, it is clear that restricting free speech does not change the values of people with hatred.
Freedom of speech allows the victims to raise voices against the ongoing oppression. Badamchi fostered the ground of freedom of speech by combining the two justifications which are autonomy and democratic participation. Scholars argued that consequentialist justifications which are based on the discovery of truth, free speech leading to personal development are not adequate to support free speech. Thus, freedom of speech can be supported by non-consequentialist justification for free speech which is autonomy and democratic participation (Badamchi). Some countries have zero tolerance for negative coverage. These are the countries with a ban on freedom of speech. Zero tolerance is mores close to violence than hate speech itself (Committee to Protect Journalists). Many countries are known for organizing the repudiation acts for recalcitrant journalists such as Cuba, Uzbekistan, etc.
Thus, the proponents of free speech believe that ban on freedom of expression does not change the people filled with hatred. They believe that it brings more violence than the free speech. They assume that people expressing hate cannot harm the people in their surroundings. They just express what they think which is their right without considering the feelings of others. This debate on freedom of speech cannot be merely justified by the examples of the countries such as North Korea and Cuba etc. The proponents think that free speech is the only way to share ideas, values, convictions and concepts. It protects people from being persecuted by the governments. The preceding paragraph highlights the counterarguments to the ban on freedom of speech stating that it does not change the people filled with hatred, however, it does not take into account the harm free speech is causing to others.
Restricting hate speech prevents the proliferation of more hate. Speech代写
As a society, we should educate each other on the unity of mankind rather than segregate us. Antonio Guterres; UN Secretary-General (2020), addressed the nations stating that “the pandemic continues to unleash a tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scare-mongering’ ‘appealing for an all-out effort to end hate speech globally’ and urging governments to ‘act now to strengthen the immunity of our societies against the virus of hate” (Peters). He emphasized building a social cohesion among the political leaders. He also catapulted the social media platforms to remove all the offensive and racist material from their platforms calling them against international human rights. United Nations instigated a United Nations Strategy & Plan of Action on Hate Speech (2019) indicating towards the racism, xenophobia and intolerance among the public and dehumanization of others.
Its foreword indicated that hate is disseminating in society debilitating the humanity (Peters). Hate speech is explicitly related to the surged violence towards the immigrants, minorities and leading to mass shootings, ethnic cleansing and lynching incidents. It is profound that the increased mass shootings and incidents of unrest have increased in the world despite the freedom of speech. Thus, enabling hate speech leads to more violence than restricting hate speech. The incidents of attacks on immigrants and other minority groups have stirred some new concerns regarding the violent acts and aggressive online speeches, highlighting the role of corporations and institutions in policing free speech. Free speech has brought more hatred and violence in society with the development of social media. Thus, material disseminating online contribute explicitly to the increasing violence and ethnic cleansing (Laub).
As people are moving online over time, people are getting more inclined towards misogyny, racism, and homophobia. Speech代写
They have found a platform where they can reinforce their views and got support for their act of violence. This is due to the freedom of speech which has become more feasible through social media. We need to stop this expression of hatred towards each other immediately, which could only be done if we stop taking unnecessary advantage of free speech. Education could play here an important role. Education on media ethics is required to be given to everyone despite their color, ethnicity and color of origin. This would help to play their role in creating peaceful societies (JameKolok).
By restricting free speech we are allotting time away from regressive ideas putting forward progressive ideas. Limitation on free speech limits a person do not waste their time on aggressive ideas and thought and allot this time in progressive work, ideas and thoughts. It can generate a positive environment and community. A community where people particularly minority groups of society are protected from hate speeches and aggressive actions. The states are now focusing more to limit free speech to generate a healthy and positive nation. In current years many ethnic, religious, and feminists groups have challenged the fortification of certain types of speech. Particularly it was asserted that specific types of speech either conflict with the other rights for instance equality; divest minorities of the ability or capacity to exercise their rights to freedom of speech.
Even the radical and minority critics of free speech without restrictions and limitation do so through invoking the same values advocated by liberals: dignity, equality, and autonomy (Harel). Free speech without restriction cannot be progressive particularly if talking about it in the context of the United States with all the sociological, historical, and philosophical baggage that comes up with the recent, United States free expression right. It is not mean that right to free speech does not need protection. It may serve as a significant side restriction on the chase of progressive goals as well as can protect the progressiveness against the possibility of catastrophic results (Seidman). Various big internet companies spend billions of dollars to enforce and implement austere controls on user speech. Smaller companies have not too many resources to implement this strict control.
Many companies have no alternative however the possible way to shut down the user content beyond the unobtrusive input (FRENCH).
Taking free speech seriously implicates acknowledging it as liberty and a claim right. Free speech is liberty as it consists of the absence of limitations on what individuals are free to speech (Gunatilleke). However domestic and international law authorizes the state to enforce limitations on free speech to generate and advance broad aims for instance public order, national security, public morals, and public health, and to advocate progressive ideas for nation benefits. Various researches demonstrate that free speech is susceptible to unwarranted limitations (Gunatilleke).
The above paragraph states the importance of subduing free speech in order to put forth progressive ideas. This paragraph posits the counterargument to subdue free speech by putting forwards some other ways. It is difficult to determine what is a regressive idea, especially if you do not discuss them. We need to educate ourselves on history and morality so that we can learn from history. The proponents suggest that instead of putting a ban on free speech, awareness must be spread regarding the social, cultural and political rights of the communities. This involves the responsibilities regarding the freedom of speech and its social implications. Journalists must possess knowledge about the identification of the hate speech and how to counteract hateful messages or comments.
This knowledge about morality can prevent the expression of hate, protect the rights of debilitated groups and curb violence such as ethnic cleansing. Moreover, in order to rule out the “us” against “them” fallacy, the conflict sensitivity must be reported. The conflict sensitivity reporting skills must be taught to the journalists. The proponents of free speech also believe that multicultural awareness campaigns must be instigated to emphasize respect for the diversity in the society. To fulfill this purpose, television programs must be aired which are unbiased and do not target any single group, race or religion, etc.
The steps will deviate people’s attention from regressive ideas and promote the progressive ideas in the society (JameKolok). Speech代写
Indeed spreading knowledge about morality to curb the expression of regressive ideas is important but it cannot rule out starkly the effects of freedom of expression in the form of hate speech and violence. Our present knowledge stems from what we already know. If we are to add breadth to viewpoints it may alter our perspective and the way we process information. We can discuss history and facts, but should not encourage negativity. Hate speech cannot merely be eradicated by the knowledge of historical facts and ethics. It requires to be addressed by force which can only be done by imposing a ban on it. In the contemporary world, people do possess knowledge about ethics and morality. They are well-aware of the fact that targeting someone’s religion is wrong ethically and morally but they still pursue these regressive ideas and spread hatred among people in the community.
They know that every human being has a right to be happy. Sometimes even the well-educated individuals of society become a source of aggression and violence. Thus, knowledge solely cannot address the issues caused by the free speech. It is difficult to know when free speech becomes hate speech and leads to violence. Our single comment on social media or in public places could hurt the feelings of the individuals making communities. People in the contemporary world are found justifying their act calling it a freedom of expression, it is often mistaken with the expression of hatred towards a particular sect, religion, or color. Adding more perspectives would not help to address these issues in fact it could disseminate confusion among people.
The importance of free speech cannot be negated.
But the misuse of freedom of expression not only by the common people but also by eminent figures such as politicians is prevalent. The examples of such figures are former US President Donald Trump and current President of France Emanuel Macron who recently has supported the hatred against Muslims calling it a freedom of expression. This indicates the consequences of freedom of speech. Undoubtedly, freedom of speech is important for sharing progressive ideas but some sort of restrictions are required to prevent the contempt depicted by some people for others. Ethical knowledge alone cannot eradicate this issue instantly unless some sort of restriction is not implemented on the people with a radical mindset.
Works Cited Speech代写
JameKolok, Poni Alice. 5 ways to counter hate speech in the Media through Ethics and Self-regulation. n.d. <https://en.unesco.org/5-ways-to-counter-hate-speech>.
Badamchi, Devrim Kabasakal . “Justifications of freedom of speech: Towards a double-grounded non-consequentialist approach.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 41.9 (2015): 907-927. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0191453714564457#articleCitationDownloadContainer>.
Barendt, Eric . “What Is the Harm of Hate Speech?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (2019): 539–553. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0>.
Committee to Protect Journalists. “10 Most Censored Countries.” 2019. <https://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/10-most-censored-countries/>.
Elster, Naomi. More than Hurt Feelings: The Real Danger of Hate Speech. 2017. <https://impakter.com/hurt-feelings-real-danger-hate-speech/>.
Equalityhumanrights. “Article 10: Freedom of expression.” Equality Human Rights (2020): 1-2.
FRENCH, DAVID. “The Growing Threat to Free Speech Online.” Time (2020): 1-4.
Goldberg, Erica . “FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM.” Columbia Law Review 116.3 (2016): 687-756. <https://sci-hub.do/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43783393?seq=1>.
Gunatilleke, Gehan . “Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression.” Human Rights Review 22 (2021): 91–108.
Harel, Alon. “Freedom of Speech.” The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law (2011): 1-36.
Laub, Zachary . Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons. 2019. <https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons>.
Levush, Ruth . “Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary.” The Library of Congress (2019): 1-2.
Marantz, Andrew . Free Speech Is Killing Us. 2019. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html>.
Peters, Michael A. “Limiting the capacity for hate: Hate speech, hate groups and the philosophy of hate.” Educational Philosophy and Theory (2020). <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2020.1802818>.
Seidman, Louis Michael. “Can Free Speech Be Progressive?” Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. 118.7 (2018): 2219-2250.
US Courts. “What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts (2021).
Volokh, Eugene . No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/>.
