In the Bill of Rights, United States of America has granted people the freedom of speech and expression. There right to speaking freely and without any hesitation is protected in the constitution of America (Mitchell). But the question arises, to what extent the freedom of speech and expression is allowed? Does it have any limitations and restrictions?
One of the most beautiful rights of a human being is considered to be the freedom allowed to him or her to search and impart knowledge and information to others (Tuinman & Ten Hoorn). But there is a much-heated debate going on these days whether the freedom of speech should have limits to it or not. We live in a globalized society. The technology has advanced to the point that a person sitting in Africa can get his views to someone lying on his bed in Australia. The words travel at the speed of light. In this globalized and connected world, should not we have certain restrictions on what to say and what not to say? Not only we live in a world, where every single person can get his opinions and views on anywhere in the world, but we live in a multi-cultural society. We can exclude the rest of the world, and talk about a specific country, for instance, the United States of America. It is one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world. People from all across the continents come here to live, study and work. People with different backgrounds, cultures, religions, race, ethnicities come together and live in America. It will be not wise to say something even somewhat deplorable about any race, color or religion just because one has the right to say anything. It will have a serious and grave impact on that particular person or group.
A society with people of every age, culture, religion cannot afford to have someone target the other person’s race, sexuality or religion. It will obliterate and destroy the very fabric of society that has been keeping them together. If someone thinks that he or she will say something about anyone, it is his or her right, then people will say the same thing about them also. If someone expresses about other people’s religion with contempt, then it will have serious consequences that he or she has to deal with. People might start abusing and chastising their belief system as well. This will ruin the democratic and civilized society from within. There should be some limitations as to what to say what not to express. It is true that people have the right to express their opinions, but not at the expense of other people’s feelings.
If a government is not doing its work properly or if the police force is not effective as it used to be, then the criticism from the public or opposition will be valid as it will be for the betterment of the society, but if people start abusing and condemning specific people because of their race, color or sexual orientation then it will not do any good to anyone, instead it will be detrimental to the people being abused and targeted. The freedom of speech and expression should be used for the good of the society. People seem to think that they have the power to say whatever they feel like with impunity, without any consequences and implications to encounter with. The justifiable criticism is productive, but passing bigotry remarks against someone is anything but fruitful. The freedom of speech that will produce results, that will be beneficial for the state, government and above all, for the people must be allowed but hurting someone’s feelings just because he or she is not of the same viewpoint as them is entirely immature and futile. The homophobic and racist remarks will provide nothing for the progress of the country. The kind of speeches and views, which produce nothing fruitful either for the state or the people, should be restraint.
Free speech and expression, in its true form, does not and cannot exist. Absolute freedom in anything is dangerous. Freedom of speech, if it was absolutely free, would mean that anyone could abuse and threaten The President of United States and can get away with it without facing some legal consequences. The freedom of speech would mean people start abusing and slandering other people’s parents and teachers and would get away with it. It is hard to believe if a person abuses and shows contempt towards the principal of school or college and no action is taken against that student. It is hard to believe if someone passes racist remarks against someone and would not be criticized for it. Every action has its consequences. If one group starts slandering the views, opinions, race, and religion of the other group, but the second group would reciprocate their actions and would start abusing them. It would thrust the society into chaos. The only reason a power can be justifiably exercised over someone, against that individual, is not to injure him or her (Moritz).
The reason why countries such as America, Britain, Canada France etc. are world leaders because they learned their lessons from the past and rectified their actions. If a society is not well-integrated, and have people insulting and slandering each other under the pretext of freedom of speech, then there would not be a need for an external force to destroy a country. If people have hatred amongst themselves and are not united, then they are already destroyed. The freedom of speech and expression should be allowed to the extent that it does not hurt any group and faction of people, does not inculcate and instill feelings of hatred and animosity. It should always be used for the betterment of the society. The speech and expression, which brings prosperity is the only useful and important thing needed, others are just secondary.
Works Cited
Mitchell, Don. “The liberalization of free speech: Or, how a to protest in public space is silenced.” Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements 47 (2016).
Tuinman, P. R., and S. Ten Hoorn. “Freedom of speech for all critically ill patients: work in progress.” Critical Care 21.1 (2017): 27.
Moritz, Joshua M. “The Role of Theology in the History and Philosophy of Science.” Brill Research Perspectives in Theology 1.2 (2017): 1-105.
