Some argue that censorship should not eliminate the right to information, they believe that people got the freedom of speech, to express oneself freely whether through words of the mouth, literature ,art and other means of communication. You can’t judge the individuals they have a different views but the censorship does not allow the people as for example the media got the right to disclose the information that people needs to understand, however ,According Clyde (1997) Censorship internet is vital tool in education actually it is an environment children should be kept away from. It benefit by the way it is used but some use it in a wrong way for example, Social media is a place where people can say or type thing openly as religion offense, intense racism and political issues etc. Whereas Some even argue that it is to be fine that movies and books to be censored but not to monitor the lyrics of the songs. Which most of the song now a days got curses.
His gist is that privacy should be respected which makes him moderate moralism, law should only intervene when society won’t tolerate certain behaviour, law should be a minimum standard not a maximum standard and act as general guideline. Is the act of polyandry tolerable by the society? In some society it is tolerable but in some they will not. However, to abolish the act of polyandry will also intervene with the privacy on the individuals. 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.
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
I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely offensive, not harmful to the rights of others. Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited.
In other words if there was no freedom there wouldn’t be any Freedom of Speech. So, the Freedom Of Speech is based on freedom itself. Word by word it’s defined in as “Right to express one 's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication but without deliberately causing harm to others ' character and/or
It can otherwise be known that people will use the first amendment as a defense for their doings. The fourth amendment then states, that people are safe from unreasonable searches in their papers, or media posts, unless there is probable cause. This goes along with the relation of content only being monitored if officials are looking for evidence to a case. No one should be presumptuously accused of something. It is considered a lack of privacy in a sense that others donâ€™t like to be watched, especially if they are doing nothing wrong.
Decency or morality is a ground on which freedom of speech and expression may be reasonably restricted. Decency is the same as lack of obscenity. The right to freedom of speech cannot be permitted to deprave and corrupt the community, and therefore, the writings or other objects, if obscene, may be suppressed and punished because such action would be to promote public decency and morality. Thus, obscenity becomes a subject of constitutional interest since it illustrates well the clash between the right of the individual to freely express his opinions and the duty of the State to safeguard morals. Further the scope of obscenity under the existing law is illustrated in Sections 292 to 296 IPC.
These changes like increasing more security in areas or preventing people from going somewhere dangerous limit our freedom. But people are unsatisfied with us simply because people don’t want safety over freedom, they want both. So when H. L. Mencken, an American essayist and social critic wrote that “An average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe,” his point of view doesn’t accurately describe our society as people want safety and freedom. As said earlier, our society relies on the idea that safety and freedom are both things that are necessities to the perfect life.
Hence, preventing dictatorship. Freedom of speech should be made absolute to allow citizens to exchange views and information, to protest against injustice, to influence the public discourse, and to criticize the actions of the government. Therefore, restrictions on free speech cause harm to democratic life and stands in contradiction to the fundamental principles of
Shared responsibility For starters, freedom of speech gives a person a certain level of responsibility, enhanced trust, frankness, and better sense of liability. In addition, free speech acts a tool in nurturing social evolution. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that we all enjoy freedom of speech, the government must put measures into place to stop groups that promote offensive views, such as racism, fascism, sexism and terrorism. 2. Enhances self-esteem Another reason why the government should encourage freedom of speech is to help people develop poise to express their views without fear of being condemned or punished.