Argument Against Freedom Of Speech

1027 Words5 Pages
Freedom of speech has been recognized as the most fundamental value to a democratic society. It serves the individual’s rights, to be an active player in the democracy, not just a passive spectator. Free speech expands an individual’s thinking, without the ability to express ideas, to be exposed to other’s ideas, people then cannot develop fully as individuals. However, our society is built on law and order, which, means that inevitably there will be restrictions placed upon free speech. Recent cases led us to question if there should be more limits placed upon free speech. Many often abuse this right to provoke, offend, to spread lies and hate; some cases inspire violence such as the Charlie Hebdo incident. In other words, total freedom of speech can lead to breakdown in law and order. Therefore, I do not agree that freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.

One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that it can be used to provoke and inspire violence. Free speech allows an individual to voice out any opinions without interference. Some people however feel free speech means we can freely hurl insults to provoke and offend which is abusing the right. Oliver Wendell Junior, a staunch supporter of free speech recognizes that there should be limits placed upon it through his famous observation that freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre as it could jeopardize the people’s safety. Abuse of free speech can lead
Open Document