Freedom Of Speech Limitations Essay Typer
Freedom of speech is something that is authorized to every person. No matter rich or poor, young or old, every person holds different opinion and it’s their right to express it. The definition of Freedom of speech is that every person has the right to express his/her opinion without the fear of government or society. This is why it is said ‘Speech is not limited to public only’. Being individuals, we are all different. We all possess different ideas, tastes and thinking. Freedom of speech is something like freedom of thoughts. If we are comfortable with each other’s freedom of thoughts like ‘every person has the right to follow his thoughts, conscience’ then why we hate when someone express their ideas or opinions despite the fact that opinions are just opinions, never right or wrong.
From today’s society, the only answer that can be considered satisfactory is that we have changed the definition of ‘freedom of speech’. We have changed our way of expressing ideas. We have become intolerant especially on the social media where we all act like having a furious debate and desperate to win it. I have myself seen a lot many cases like this, when someone does not like someone else’s article, they just start commenting criticism and disparage others by expressing their thoughts with the belief that only they are accurate. This self-centered attitude starts a never ending debate which spread nothing else but sectarianism, hatred, abhorrence and hostility.
This is why it is said ‘freedom of speech should be limited now a days’. It’s actually the reason behind needless fights when a person wants to prove his opinion right at any coast. Basically it means that now a day people insult each other for holding different opinions from them. ‘Hatred takes energy’ so why waste our energy on proving ourselves right by insulting others. Instead we should accept and respect other’s opinions and move on.
Freedom of speech is every being’s fundamental right but unfortunately, today, some people are using it to propagandize aggressiveness, intolerance and enmity. Every person should be given right to express but before expressing; it’s their responsibility to have set some limits.
Charlie Hebdo’s act which was given name of ‘freedom of speech’ was in fact a freedom to insult according to Muslim community. They published the cartoons of a highly revered personality in Islam; Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).This act is not only forbidden in Islam but also caused many Muslims to suffer emotional pain and resentment at such an open exhibition of hatred in the name of freedom of expression.Ironically the same magazine, in 2008, fired one of its cartoonists for publishing ‘anti-Semitic’ statement. On the other hand, this is also true that it has the past of issuing cartoons or articles that mock other religions. Prophet (PBHUH) is the central figure of Islam and Muslims love and respect him more than themselves, their parents and their children. Nobody likes it when some person mocks or criticizes them or their families, then how can the magazine name it ‘freedom of speech’ by cartooning a sacred human in an improper way. This defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) caused indignation among many young Muslims who felt alienated at the spread of hate speech in the name of ‘freedom of expression’. Although the terrorist attack on the magazine is equally condemnable and cannot be justified in any case. But, had the magazine exhibited some responsibilities in the usage of ‘freedom of expression’ this world would have escaped a horrific terror attack.
Talking and doing are two contrasting things. No one has the mastery to change what’s in your mind but problem arise when you act on it and enforce your opinions on others. The way Charlie Hebdo chooses to express which they called their ‘opinion’ was totally wrong and unacceptable by Muslims.
Let’s take another present example in front of us. Donald Trump, a famous name and Republican Presidential candidate of 2016 presidential elections of the USA, is notorious for his racial remarks. He refused to rent homes to black people, he refuses to condemn the violence against Muslim Americans and African-Americans executed by his supporters, he asks to ban Muslims from America, he mocks Chinese and Japanese for their heritage and English. Irony is his supporters label it all as ‘freedom of speech’ but in actual it is his loathing that contains no limits.
I am not arguing that we should curtail the right of ’freedom of speech’. I espouse the fact that one should have complete liberty to describe ideas and opinions as ideas breed innovation and progress. On the other hand it is equally wrong to spread hatred, to malign and defame fellow human beings in the name of freedom of speech.
Just as the right to hold a licensed gun does not grant someone a license to shoot a human being, it is the responsibility of the gun holder to use it with extreme care, similarly the right of ‘freedom of expression’ should be practiced carefully so that we may not spread hatred and ignite violence in the society.
I would like to conclude with a prudent remark of J. K. Rowling in her famous book ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’
Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
Freedom Of Speech Should be Limited Essay
1334 Words6 Pages
Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?
The entire American Government is based in the belief that all human beings are born with certain rights. People do not receive their rights from the Government; its function is actually to guard the rights we already have. Citizens are protected by the first amendment, which prohibits government from acting against anyone's rights.
The first amendment applies to every single citizen in the country, but most of them do not even know what it is about or what it means. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging…show more content…
There are four general situations in which freedom of speech should be banned. The first one is Clear and present danger: Freedom of speech will not be protected if the words that come from any person's mouth put in danger someone else, provoke violence, or even incite or suggest illegal actions. A second situation is fighting words: These are the terms socially know to rage anyone, and when they are told face-to-face to a second person, they are not protected by the first amendment because they tend to alter public order and stimulate violence. The third main situation in freedom of speech is known as libel and slander: In this situation the Supreme Court explains that when speech or communication is used to damage someone else's reputation, to lie, or to tergiversate the truth and make it look as something it is not, it is not covered under the first amendment. The forth and last boundary of the first amendment is referred to as time, place and manner: This particular scenario does not disallow the content of the speech itself, but it takes into consideration the place where the speech is given, and the way the person presents the speech. If under any circumstance the government interests or regularities are violated, the speech is not protected under the first amendment.
In the paragraph above, the major four situations of speech banning, recognized by government