Should there be limitations on free speech?

by Anonymous3 on November 19, 2017 - 3:57pm

Candice Malcolm, writer of news article “Our free speech is already under attack”, believes that freedom of speech is essential for a free society. She says it is not only about sharing oppositions to opinions you don’t agree with, rather, it’s purpose is to civilly debate with others on subjects including those we do not agree with. Debates are learning experiences, they expose people to different perspectives other than their own. Moreover, Canadians are united by the ability to take criticism from others and through the understanding of opposing views. Malcolm states that unity is the base to our free society. However, freedom of speech does not unify Canadians at all times. This is because, intolerance, bias and dishonesty has been brought to light. An example of this comes from an incident that involved the Liberal and NDP MP’s. Supposedly, the MP’s walked out of a meeting when Rachael Harder, the meeting’s chair, revealed her opposition to abortion. They simply did not want to be in a room with someone who had a different view from their own. Another incident that led Candice Malcolm to believe that our freedom of speech is under attack is when CBC twisted her words after she had written an article which critiqued CBC’s opinion on the Sharia law. They had blamed her for triggering public fear about a comment that said “Sharia is already in Canada”, a statement said by CBC and not Candice. Also, her words were being taken out of context by Huffington Post. Tactics such as these ones oppose the purpose of free speech.

 

Freedom of speech is a right to us humans that should not be taken away. This is why i agree with the author of this article that free speech is necessary for the development of our society because allowing others to criticize helps others understand and look at different views from different perspectives. Yes, many say that there should be limits to free speech because of hate speech. Although hate speech is serious and should not be taken lightly, that is the problem of those who are ignorant enough to say claims that relate to hate speech. It is not easy to ignore hate speech but why should we jeopardize human rights and learning experiences because of it.

Do you think hate speech is why there should be limitations on free speech?

 

Malcolm, Candice. “Our free speech is already under attack.” 27 Sep, 2017.

http://torontosun.com/2017/09/27/our-free-speech-is-already-under-attack/wcm/e57bedb3-a3dd-4ed4-9b28-46721dc2321d. Accessed 19 Nov, 2017.

Comments

I decided to respond to your post because it is a really controversial topic nowadays. To answer your question, yes I believe hate speeches should be the limitation of free speech. You say that you agree with the author of the article because society advances more if people get criticized. I don’t think this is wrong, but there is a difference between criticizing and insulting people. Criticizing may make one feel bad, but hate speeches cause prejudice to the people involved. I think causing pain and suffering to people should be avoided. In the cases of physical injuries, causing prejudice to one is criminal. Maybe punishing people that have hurtful speeches is not realizable, but it still would be great to try and reduce the racial disparities and bias that are results of hate speech. I don’t think putting limitations on hate speech would jeopardize education and human rights. Could you please explain why you think it would be the case?

I decided to respond to your post because it is a really controversial topic nowadays. To answer your question, yes I believe hate speeches should be the limitation of free speech. You say that you agree with the author of the article because society advances more if people get criticized. I don’t think this is wrong, but there is a difference between criticizing and insulting people. Criticizing may make one feel bad, but hate speeches cause prejudice to the people involved. I think causing pain and suffering to people should be avoided. In the cases of physical injuries, causing prejudice to one is criminal. Maybe punishing people that have hurtful speeches is not realizable, but it still would be great to try and reduce the racial disparities and bias that are results of hate speech. I don’t think putting limitations on hate speech would jeopardize education and human rights. Could you please explain why you think it would be the case?

I chose to comment on your summary because I believe freedom of speech is really important in our society. Although I do agree that free speech is crucial to our societies' development, I think that some limits should be placed in instances of hate speech. The reason why I have this belief is simple; hate speech is hurtful to others as well as often being discriminatory, racist, sexist, and so on. I believe that anyone has the right to disclose their opinions unless it infringes on the safety of other people or if it is insulting their person with no founded reason other than hate. Although I respect your opinion, I would like it if you could further explain why you would not put limits on free speech when it is hate speech?

About the author