Free speech is essential in the community for expressing one’s opinions, thoughts, convictions, and beliefs. Furthermore, free speech permits individuals to genuinely engage in democracy and the development of society by discussing problems that impact citizens’ regular lives frankly and publicly without fear. However, excessive freedom of expression in some circumstances is highly destructive to the country, and the government restricts freedom of speech in such situations by regulations that must be followed. This essay, therefore, justifies why the government or the community limits freedom of speech through regulations and address counterclaim for the restriction.
The government may limit people’s freedom of speech if their remarks or writing style endangers national security. This provocation might be intended to split the country and push it into a fierce fight to overthrow the government. In such cases, the law allows for the deprivation of one’s right to free speech if it would endanger the citizen’s and government’s existence. According to Oleksiyenko and Jackson (2020), the government may limit how much information the media provides on force deployment and keep it secret during the war. This is critical since the administration would want to remain unnoticed by the primary enemy, whose main goal is to capture the country’s boundaries. Furthermore, Arthur (2021) educates that various governments have overused the concept of “national security” to shield themselves from public criticism throughout history. This has become an issue today, and many people wonder if restricting free speech in the name of national security has any relevance in the modern world.
When a false remark is made against a person, the state’s common laws and statutory laws govern and limit or restrict the press or a person’s freedom of expression, depending on the damages caused. According to Berg and Kim (2018), defamation is the transmission or dissemination of incorrect information and remarks that injure one’s reputation. The first amendment of the United States Constitution does not extend such privileges to persons who willfully propagate lies about another person to hurt their reputations (Berg & Kim, 2018). There is nothing like erroneous beliefs or ideas because defamation hinders free speech and media expression. On other occasions, however, the world has observed conditions of deception and facts that target members of society and are purposefully shot to ruin their reputations. This is incorrect because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not give such rights to free speech and expression.
However, today’s world is plagued with greed and corruption, eroding democracy. It is tough to discern whether suppressing speech and open expression of another offensive conduct is done to conceal injustices (McGee & Block, 2022). In such a scenario, suppressing free expression would have robbed the public of important information needed to serve justice and reward the matter (McGee & Block, 2022). McGee and Block (2022) advice that it is to investigate thoroughly individuals who commit crimes such as corruption or abuse of office, which then raises the alarm when the public starts to criticize what they have done. As a result, before restricting one’s freedom of expression, the government, through relevant agencies, should evaluate whether such a statement is truthful or untrue. Only when it found that the utterance was genuinely intentional should one’s freedom of speech be restricted.
When spreading hate speech or fighting words, one’s freedom of speech or media expression may be limited for social harmony and the well-being of community members. According to Chetty and Alathur (2018), fighting words can initiate community wars, especially when directed against a specific group in the community. Hate speech against a certain race, ethnicity, or group in the country or discrimination against other groups causes disorder in the community. Although the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression, it does not give one the authority to violate the rights of others. As a result, free expression is limited when one’s words discriminate against others or spread false incitement-fighting words that have the potential to harm others (Chetty & Alathur, 2018). However, limiting free speech on this basis may occasionally conceal one’s shady dealings if the fighting words are intended to condemn someone or the government for a terrible job (Chetty & Alathur, 2018). As a result, the community and residents would need to be made aware of what they needed to know to undertake change that would fix such mistakes. This might stifle democratic progress and foster undemocratic societies.
Concluding the discussion, this paper has discovered that free speech and media expression in the community foster democracy. However, in some instances, free speech and expression in the community can be harmful and lead to a bloodbath if not supervised. As a result, the government can limit free expression under the constitution’s first amendment and has the power to limit one’s freedom of speech and expression. National security, as outlined in this article, is vital during times of disaster. If not well regulated, propaganda and provocation can lead to societal strife, resulting in significant losses. Even if some data reveals that national security has been used to cover fraudulent government activities, limiting freedom of expression at such times is critical to safeguard government operations and restore social calm. Moreover, protecting individual reputations and rights is the government’s responsibility. Therefore, through relevant bodies, the government normally reinforces laws and measures protecting all citizens from spiteful speech that could psychologically affect the targeted individuals.
References
Arthur, J. (2021). Campus Warsmulticulturalism and The Politics of Difference. Routledge.
Berg, N., & Kim, J.-Y. (2018). Free expression and defamation. Law, Probability and Risk, 17(3), 201–223. Web.
Chetty, N., & Alathur, S. (2018). Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 40, 108–118. Web.
McGee, R. W., & Block, W. (2022). Helping Hand v. Greedy Hand Bribery. Papers.ssrn.com. Web.
Oleksiyenko, A. V., & Jackson, L. (2020). Freedom of speech, freedom to teach, freedom to learn: The crisis of higher education in the post-truth era. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(11), 1–6. Web.