To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.
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?
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.
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
The reasons are different why legalization of gay marriage is impartial. Not only does it have importance in a sense of democratic principles but some kind of benefits can be brought as a result. In order to explore these issues, explication of supporting claims and rejection of counterarguments related to gay marriage is essential. One of the basic argument against gay marriage is connected with the idea that it is against traditional values or is violence on religious beliefs. Such kind of claims are quite confusing and in many cases specific people are influenced by them.
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.
Right to freedom of speech, expression or association is basically one of the aspect of liberty while on the other hand the restrictions are the security of the state and these two, liberty and the restrictions are antagonistic in the pure form . As the foundations of law and government of the country, the constitution tries to strike a balance between liberty and restrictions but apparently it is not an easy job. The court’s attitude towards unpleasant, disturbing and outrageous ideas may not please everyone and not everyone will agree to it and also no one doubt that freedom of speech or expression views as one of the foundations of a democratic society . Even though not everyone will agree
Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights that is utmost for any democratic system to function in an acceptable extend. In Malaysia, freedom of expression is more often than not restricted through old-fashioned laws and in some cases restricted through the threat of violence. The laws restricting the Freedom of Expression includes but is not limited to few laws such as, 1. The Sedition Act 1948 2. The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 3.
A healthy democracy is sustained by informing and making aware the citizens of conflicting and differing points of view and any inroads into the freedom of speech and expression, and any rules made in the form of imposing curbs thereon would violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Such are not saved by Article 19(2)9 of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is an essential feature of any genuine Democracy. The right of freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy, information ideas help to inform political debate and are essential to public accountability and transparency in government, for a democratic system to function, people have to be able to form their own ideas. One must be able to receive many different ideas and information, reflecting many different perspectives, before being able to see the truth.
When it comes to democracy, liberty to express or freedom of thought becomes utmost important and holds paramount significance under constitutional scheme. Equally, in S. Khushboo vs Kanniamal & Anr, the Court stated that the importance of freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as we need to tolerate unpopular views. This right requires the free flow of opinions and ideas essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance, the culture of open dialogue is generally of great societal importance. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1) (a).