“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”― S.G. Tallentyre. Humans throughout history have been given a series of rights. That they can 't be denied. One of the most important rights that the government nor anyone can take from an individual is freedom of expression which envelopes freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of thought. .
Freedom of speech is indeed a basic human right, but does protecting free speech includes hate speech? Having the freedom to say anything causes the possibility of offending or harming certain groups. Consequently, protecting free speech at all costs might result in the instability of the country. Therefore, I disagree with the statement made that freedom of speech should be protected at all cost. Why is freedom of speech so important?
Lastly, Sharia law cannot coexist with a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" because it would violate the American Constitution. One of the first things that the Constitution grants its American citizens is free speech; this means that people can say whatever they want. However, Sharia law does not grant such a luxury. It is against the code to "[criticize] or [deny] any part of Quran". If anyone under Sharia law violates said code, the punishment is death.
“Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.” It is stated in the article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan. (Article 19) Media has never been consistent in Pakistan. Media plays a vital role in today’s world and especially in our society where people rely on it. Normally freedom of speech is taken as a notion that every person has a natural right to even speak his mind or share his opinion without interference, threats, and censorships. But the situation is pretty much different when it comes to freedom of expression on media.
The ill minded should not be the cause of the abiding citizens of America to lose their rights. The second amendment (the right to bear arms) was within the first 10 amendments to be put into our Bill of Rights. As the supreme court stated, the right to bear arms belongs completely to those as individuals. The purpose of the second amendment to be made was to make sure that the government couldn’t unarm our militias and make federal standing armies. When argued that the Second Amendment is purely to keep from disarming the state militias can not be entirely true, for it is said in the last half of the Amendment itself “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
Any expression, therefore, that impedes on one person or a group of people should be stopped because it has not done anything to benefit anybody. Mill’s statements on the freedom of speech is what I will rely on for my argument. Mill’s view on the freedom of speech is still relevant today because he does not take the view that there shouldn’t be any freedom of speech, but that it should be limited at certain times and this issue is very relevant in today’s society. Mill states a bold statement in the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, in defence of the freedom of speech ‘If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. Mill clearly is in the defence of the freedom of speech here because this liberty has to exist with everything so that we have ‘absolute freedom of
It is absolutely necessary because it’ll help protect people against the power of the national government. In fact, if there is no limit to what the government can and can’t do, it is safe to say that they could also possibly abuse the people’s rights, taking away our freedom, liberty, etc. As a matter of fact, if we do have a Bill of Rights, it sets limits in place and provides the people’s protection from being exploited by a simple weakness. Similarly, there’s also no mention of freedom of religion, speech, or press. Since these freedoms aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, the government is allowed to exercise authority over these freedoms.
Where a right has been written in the head of “Fundamental Rights” it becomes imperative for the legal organ of the state to enforce such right to all the citizens. In regard to Freedom of religion, I don’t find this theory to be seen in its practical form. Hence I shall be discussing in detail about the theoretical and practical
Freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves by making a speech without interference from the government. (Cornell University Law School, 2004) This allows the government to be able to know what the citizens point out their views when in a dangerous position. Freedom of speech are in more than 18 countries in the world and still going on even today. In Singapore, the government restrict citizens to have freedom of speech regardless of race and religion as it caused division in society and I also agreed with this. The three reasons why I should not allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in public because will offended to someone of any races and affect the economy in Singapore, can lead to violence and increase the chances of riots in Singapore.
Freedom for the media is a freedom on behalf of the public and must never develop a disconnected freedom in it is own right, it need to work on behalf of the people and for their right to express in the public sphere (freedom of press:2013). Press freedom is always crucial, particularly in 2014. This is because people have seen governments and corporations restricting internet freedom in many places, and in South Africa we are not yet out of the forests with regard to the media tribunal and privacy(). The current situation regarding press freedom Freedom of the press index assesses the amount of print, broadcast, and internet freedom in every country in the world, examining the procedures or events and developments of each chart, ranking are determined through an examination of three broad categories, the legal environment in which media work, political influences on reporting and access to information and economic pressures on content and the distribution of news (Dunham: