If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups. It also undermines democratic citizenship and stirs up nationalism and jingoism, which results in harm to citizens of other countries. Even worse than political discourse, according to Kateb, is religious speech; he claims that a lot of religious speech is hateful, useless, dishonest, and foments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt that can haunt persons throughout their lives.
However, there are limits to what we are allowed to say. We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
Our prophet Mohamed (S.A.W) said “Say something that is in good, or remain silent”. وعن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: "من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر، فليقل خيرًا، أو ليصمت".For example, some people are saying it should be absolute; if the politicians are doing enough corruptions, then the journalists will update that so literally everyone can know that. I don’t think that should be wondered being an absolute, because speaking about political is one thing, so it can be limited. Also freedom of speech sometime mentioned hurting people’s feelings. Pointing out appearances can be effect by freedom
The right to speak is one of the fundamental human rights to maintain a democracy which is defined by the people. Besides that, freedom of speech is to speak without being fear of censoring. Everyone ought to know the situation of their country and have access of information in order to trust the country and the government. Additionally, protecting freedom of speech at all costs is to insulate the speech made regardless of the price that some might have to pay. Freedom of speech is indeed a basic human right, but does protecting free speech includes hate speech?
Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done?
Which most of the song now a days got curses. As censorship in books, plays, and movies may affect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing but people should have the freedom of speech to express their self through many ways. While censorship is needed to ensure social media, it also negates freedom of speech. People should be allowed to convey themselves and say what they feel or believe without being restricted. But freedom of speech does not mean that you can say absolutely anything it comes with responsibility and therefore people should ensure they don’t offend
Restricting speech, in general, is not the way to go about things. If we use the same basis of seeing something that most would consider distasteful, then we would start restricting other things for the sake of restricting them. For instance, mass shootings are becoming an issue that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Most people suggest an outright ban on all guns and there's a problem with that concept. Restricting the Second Amendment strips away an innocent man's right to wield a weapon for personal protection.
1.5 Regulation in Free Speech Principle The commitment to the principle of freedom of expression is of great significance to the society and so it has become necessary to spell out as clearly as possible the nitty-gritty of this commitment. From this angle, free speech as a matter of fact, does not mean that a person is free to say whatever that person wants to say. However, as has been observed over a period of time, plenty of speeches have been regulated, be it legally or illegally. Furthermore, Mary Kate McGowan buttresses the argument of regulation since she believes that regulation of a speech is perfectly compatible with the commitment to free speech. Paradoxically, too, this same commitment to the principle of free speech is making
Based on the arguments and counter arguments about the impact of censorship on freedom of speech, I personally feel that it has a more of an adverse effect. Censorship is nothing but curbing the right to freedom of speech, though there are arguments for that too. Banning and censorship only makes people more curious about the matter and in turn make it popular, which is the opposite of its intention. But denying individuals of information and platform to discuss the censored matter, will not prevent tensions in society, rather it has the reverse effect. It is true that young minds are very impressionable, but also a faulty statement in saying one could control the perception of a child 's mind by mere removal or prevention of information.
As it, anywhere may make a difference depending on the country, society or culture involved, which may justify flatly prohibiting all Nazi propaganda in Germany but not in the United States may also matter within the same country or society. Thus, hate speech in an intracommunal setting may in some cases be less dangerous than if uttered in an intercommoned setting. Without minimizing the dangers of hate speech, it seems plausible to argue that circumstances also make a difference. One very answers to all the questions related to hate speeches is ignorance. One can simply ignore the existence of controversial topics.