How would you sensibly restrict a right to freedom of expression?

Authors Avatar

How would you sensibly restrict a right to freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression is often considered to be one of the most basic canons

of democracy. As a fundamental right it is included in documents such as the

Bill of Rights in the United States, the United Nations Declaration of Human

Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, meaning that

restrictions on freedom of expression are left in the hands of the

government. However, I feel that this is an unsettling state of affairs as

the judgement of the state is based upon the needs and demographics of the

majority and cannot adjust to the individual.

Freedom of speech must allow one to speak their opinions freely, whilst

simultaneously refraining from offending other members of society making it

an ambiguous concept, needing rules and restrictions. But can we trust the

government to censor this right? The tyranny of the majority is as good a

reason as any to prevent the government from being involved in censorship,

as the majority of the population may be, for example, anti-homosexuality,

or anti-immigrant. This could be bad news for the suppressed gay immigrants

of the population. In a healthy democracy it is vital that smaller groups

are heard, and there is no way to guarantee these voices if the government

can restrict free speech. As social philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in

On Liberty, a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of

liberty and authority, and we cannot have the latter without the former:

All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of

restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct,

therefore, must be imposed -- by law in the first place, and by opinion on

many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)

The main arguments against certain speech acts are that they lead to

negative physical acts. For example, pornography, hate speech and political

Join now!

polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection, and are

therefore censored. However, it may be true that the people who commit hate

crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are

likely to have watched pornography, but not necessarily the other way

around, as viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are not incited

to commit anything they otherwise would not do. By exposing pornography,

hate speech and political polemic to society, the government hope to

increase the likelihood that it will be discredited and defeated, rather

than strengthened through persecution. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay