The best way to protect free speech is to prevent it from being misused and becoming a drawback of society. The right to free speech should not be at the expense of someone else's freedom of religion or right to life, liberty and security of person, which are also human rights. To say that this right should be protected at all cost is stretching it too far out, for there are some things that cannot and should not be compromised. Hence, not to say that Free speech should not be protected, but it should be exercised with responsibility and prudence so that it would not become an abuse of the right to do
Having been adamant believers in such laws, the founding fathers thought the best way to protect the natural rights of American citizens was to establish laws that are in agreement with divine laws. They believed that God brought the world into being with series of principles by which it should be governed. From their perspective, the American people would not be able to continue to exist as an independent civilization without the protection of these principles. Thomas Jefferson, referring to Natural Law, wrote the following words in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, U.S. 1776, para. 2).
On the other hand, the same civil liberties that allow citizens to freely express their concerns against the government, are the same rights that allow them to express themselves through hateful messages against some sections of the population. These odious messages do not always add any social value to the free market of ideas. Nevertheless, citizens of a democratic society possess the freedom to express any messages, regardless of its value. The only exceptions are if speech becomes threatening, harassing or incites people to violence against an individual or group of individuals. This paper will do a comparative analysis between three arguments for banning hate speech, and three arguments for protecting hate
Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed under the First Amendment. Despite this being a right, there are many different theories that have developed over the years in order to defend freedom of speech or arguments that wish to restrict speech more than it currently is. By comparing and contrasting the theories of free speech, I will explain why the law currently regarding freedom of speech is reaches the expansiveness in which the freedom should carry and the justification for it. Before the theories are explained, we should outline what parts of speech are currently not protected under the First Amendment. Unprotected speech includes obscenity (for example, works that lack serious value), fraudulent misinterpretation, defamation
A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are to civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this people shouldn 't be up to someone 's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected.
Freedom of speech is sometimes in conflict with the rights and freedoms with right other persons. Legal rules states generally regulate restrictions on freedom of expression in its territory. Under international law, restrictions on freedom of expression are required to respond to three conditions: they must strictly comply with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and must be necessary and appropriate to achieve this goal. Laws imposing limitations should strive to be unambiguous and does not allow for different interpretations. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits propaganda inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and enmity, as well as dissemination of information constituting a state secret.
What is freedom of speech? What is the limit of our freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is the right to speak without censorship or limitation by the government and without having to fear that there will be any action taken against them. Restrictions must not be based on a certain tradition or religion and must not discriminate against anyone living in a particular country. Other countries have already applied freedom of speech in their culture, such as Jamaica, Chile, New Zealand and Uruguay.
Singaporeans should not be allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in public. Many people think that freedom of speech is the right to express anything they want, which includes the freedom to hate, without censorship or restrictions from the government. However, such libertarian theory is thought to be impractical in Singapore because of racial, religious and cultural differences. The government believed that certain provocative speech should be curtailed to safeguard social stability. Hence, freedom of speech is not an absolute right in Singapore.
As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations. As Malaysian citizens, besides having the right to say and express whatever we want, we also have the right to assemble peaceably and we also have the right to form associations however it also being stated in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on these rights.
This can be understood form the fact that the preamble of our Indian Constitution ensures to all its citizens, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. The aim and goal of this freedom of thought and expression is transformed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) as “freedom of speech and expression”. Article 19 (1) (a) in its original form read as follows: “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” This fundamental right was, however, limited by Article 19 (2) which said: “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it relates to or prevents the state from making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offend against decency or morality or which undermines the security of the state or tends to overthrow the