There are things without which life will not be worth living. Everyone wishes to create the best seller of his life story. It is exceedingly difficult to avoid all the storms on the way but if people try to find rainbows in every cloudburst, they will start a new beginning. Nobody would be able to make a change in life without freedom. The liberty to the soul of man has completely the same importance as the light to the eyes, air to the lungs or love to the heart. Freedom has many sounds: freedom in politics, in philosophy, the freedom of the human rights. All these points actually form a big puzzle of life where one always needs to choose something. The freedom helps to make right choices and do not get lost in this complicated life game. The question to be discussed now is concerned with freedom of speech and its main principles.
Freedom of speech is the right to voice out your views and ideas without any fear of repayment or censorship. It allows people to share their thoughts with others in a loud and clear manner and not being afraid of human’s judgments or even attacking and imprisonment. Freedom means expressing such beliefs which the person is certain in and can persist in his opinions. People should comprehend and stand behind their words and do not timidly depart when anybody wants to question them. Before beginning any speech one must take into consideration other’s feelings and attempt not to hurt anyone. When the person is allowed to speak freely, he is also given a huge responsibility that becomes a reputation onwards (Mill, 1978). If you want to be treated with respect, honesty and fairness, try to treat people the same way. Thus, learn to control what you say and think carefully before you are going to speak and express your feelings.
Speaking about freedom of speech, it is necessary to understand that there should exist some restrictions. Verbal abuse is not just mere words and could hurt as much as physical damage. No matter if someone is speaking in the meeting, writing an article in a newspaper or a blog on the internet, there have to be some limits in a public area that people are not allowed to cross. A few limits should be set on the speeches which incite physical attack and also areas concerned with slander laws. They are absolutely necessary in order to prevent people from hurting each other’s feelings, espousing falsities and supporting questionable products.
In spite of the fact that today’s society has become very democratic, tolerant and multicultural, many people still believe subconsciously in that unspoken division of ‘us’ and ‘them’ (Mill, 1978). The first ones came from somewhere and the second are those who were there from the very beginning. There is always a great risk for the latter to be seen as strangers, foreigners or even a potential threat in some kind of disorders that are possible to happen anytime. Immediate restrictions should surely be put on the imminent violence, hate speeches and unlawful acts. It is much easer to prevent the accident than later to suffer grave consequences. Such prompt actions against any suspicious events should be motivated and encouraged. It is only the degree of limits that matters most.
The truth is that one must be free to give his opinions with respect and coherence, but he must also take into account the sensitivity of other people. Freedom of speech demands great responsibility of choosing words carefully and deferentially. Being free means being controlled by your mind. People should aim at making right choices and not let their emotions prevail over common sense. As soon as humans start thinking with their bodies instead of mind, a lot of trouble will begin to unfold. There is any place for lies and dishonesty even under free speech. The person who spreads misinformation must always be responsible for what he says. Everyone should remember that his freedom ends where the other’s starts. If people desire to use their freedom, they must also respect the freedom of other human beings as well.
However, there are some really important arguments against any restrictions that should be mentioned here and can not be omitted at all. Freedom of speech, in fact, helps the world to change. If there was not the possibility to express opinions, the world would not be aware of all the problems people are facing now and would not make any changes to improve the situation. People have the right to voice out their views in whatever way they want, even using hate speeches, unless they encourage or promote violence and violation of the law. Freedom of speech is the proficient tool that develops social evolution and maintains democratic society. If the government takes it away, that will be a starting point for being able to neglect other human rights. The people will be under a dictatorship where no one can do anything. Moreover, if there are limits on freedom of speech, then censorship will arise together with the danger of harbouring injustices. In most cases censorship serves a very dangerous factor that breeds ignorance, misinformation and prevents societies from making informed decisions. Finally, if people are not allowed to express themselves in speech, they would try to find another way out, such as in actions when words are not allowed t and hat would surely cause even worse consequences.
The topic of free speech is one of the most disputable issues in liberal societies. Every society places some limits on the speech because it always occurs within a context of competing values. Fish, for example, states that “free speech is not an independent value, but a political prize” (1994). There has never existed yet a society where speech has not been restricted to some point. Actually “a right to freedom of speech is not something you own or have, in the same way as you possess arms and legs” (Haworth, 1998).
Stuart Mill in his theory of value also produces a few proofs concerning the restrictions of freedom of speech. He believed that “the speech must be limited if it causes a direct and clear violation of rights that are considered to bring illegitimate harm to the society” (Mill, 1978). One can also refer to the harm principle such things as libel laws, advertising dangerous products, blackmail and securing truth in contracts. According to Mill “the best obtainable evidence for value claims consists in what all or almost all people judge as valuable across a vast variety of cases and cultures” (Mill, 1861).
If most people agree that freedom of speech should be limited because of its harmful effect to the society, it has to be done. The people should be humane in all situations and never aim at injuring other human beings even in the verbal way. Mill affirms that “in spite of anything it is better for the person to feel as dissatisfied man than as satisfied pig” (Mill, 1861).
So, if people want to have freedom of speech without any limits or restrictions, they should think over every phrase very carefully and say only those words they would happily be held accountable for and would like to receive from others.
References
Fish, S. (1994). There's No Such Thing as Free Speechand it's a good thing too, New York: Oxford University Press, 37(3), 110–118.
Haworth, A.(1998). Free Speech, London: Routledge, 22(43), 149–158.
Mill, J.S.(1978). On Liberty, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 64 (9), 83-90.
Mill, John Stuart. (1861). Utilitarianism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, v.29, pp. 371–577.
