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.
Society will always differ over how we should and should not publicly post what we choose, the government also gets involved in this which takes away some of our amendment rights. The majority of people believe that by not allowing some things to be said or published, that this constitutional right is being violated. In essence, this means that government censorship would primarily attempt to stop an unintentional effect of certain speech or expression on the Internet; in other words, the government would be opposing the idea of individualism in society. Our rights get violated in everyday life and the government hinders part of it. Society should have fullness of their right and be allowed to post whatever they please to without worrying about it being removed by the
In conclusion. By Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of freedom of speech include significant points. Although allowing freedom of speech may bring upon understandings between different ethnic groups and enhanced productivity. The disadvantages, however, have shown more of problematic issues and it seems the disadvantages can create more problems and complicate the issue to the society. Therefore, I think Singaporeans should not be allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in the public.
The King and Us Freedom of speech can be a blessing, and sometimes a curse. While we can say all thoughts in our minds, our words can cause serious harm to others, especially the words which contain no truth. Struggling to find a way to protect and limit the scale of freedom of speech, humans created a defamation law, in order to protect the reputation of others. Like other countries, Thailand also adopted this law, and later adapted to its cultural hierarchy. This adaptation causes the Thai legal system to have different defamation laws for ordinary people and for the head of the state, aka King Rama VI, the current king of Thailand.
The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 3. Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 4. State-based religious law governing Islamic publications 5. Film Censorship Act 2002 The Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) remain the laws most frequently used against critical speech in Malaysia and they are used for the criminal laws to arrest, question, and prosecute individuals for peaceful speech.
…Ensure Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Really? With the increasing number of withdrawal of books, comics and other forms of media items expressing novelty of ideas and opinions, I fear that the Indian mind will disturbingly shrink. Even after the security and freedom carved out for the citizens under the Constitution of India, no political and legal questions arise against those who actually deserve to face the consequences. The ease, with which the Indian state accedes, makes it easier for the enigmatic groups to resort to the courts and shout that they are offended.
Paul D’Angelo argues that the perception that the news media incompletely cover politics strengthened the political cynicism whereas the perception that news media oversimplified issues amplified feelings of skepticism (D’Angelo & Lombard, 2008). This maybe the reason why many individuals are not alert of what really happens behind the scene. Now is common to rely on alternative news instead of mainstream
The “Freedom of speech” is the right to share any information, thoughts or ideas without the risk of been persecuted and punished by the government. Of course, this public policy does not operate efficiently in the several countries in the world, and one such country I will discuss. The idea is that the Russian government prevents from spreading the truth and severely punishes people, who have a different point of view. World democratic community considered freedom of speech and freedom of information as a fundamental human right, which are the foundation of all other rights. Russian Federation, declaring the desire to enter the international community as a full-fledged member, must ensure unconditional fulfillment of their obligations under international human rights law and to pursue policies that maximize efforts to promote free and pluralistic media.
The current state of heavy censorship is mostly warranted by public order. While this may seem justified, it is highly illusory. Limitations on freedom of speech should only be necessary if such speech will definitely cause public disorder. However, the impact of these laws result in a restriction on speech that is “nowhere near creating racial riots, and in fact the speech abridged by this rationale may have helped quell tensions”. Earlier, it has been established that Article 14(2) enables the court to restrict freedom of speech.
When criticisms are freely voiced, it gives the government opportunities to respond to the counter arguments or opinions made by the critics. A government which is oblivious to what the different opinions of people are, can never move forward with the development of their country. This brings us to the question of how censorship has affected the concept of freedom of speech, whether it has created a positive or negative impact on the society and its people. WHAT IS CENSORSHIP? Censorship refers to the deliberate suppression of or restriction on free speech or expression which may be considered harmful or obscene as determined by the government or media or other authorities.