Amazon.com Widgets

Restrictions on freedom of speech: Is a government justified in suppressing freedom of speech in the interest of national security?

  • Jh jh uh

    Jih ihj ihj ih iuh iuh uh hu uh iu uh uih hu uh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

  • But the definition of freedom of speech is absolute

    Any limitation on the wholeness and completeness of that freedom irrespective of weather or not it benefits another person is still a restriction. And as has been pointed many nations do have several limitations on free speech, limitations that are accepted. For example, say we live in a small independent community, and the democratic ruling party has made it illegal to influence an angry mob to incite a violent reaction through any form of speech, but i may say that same sentence that would incite such a response freely in my own time or publish it when the statement induces no harm. This is still a limitation of free speech albeit one that is better for common good. Now in a case of national security the stakes are infinitely higher, and would that not create a window for the possibility of any such scenario to arise where security and freedom of speech are one opposite ends of the spectrum.

  • Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of Speech is a fundamental human right. Without being able to express themselves, the suppression of this basic right could cause further problems, rather than help the world develop more creatively towards a sustainable and technologically advanced future. From cultures, to religion, no being able to express yourself would lead to issues being created one way or another between communities, in societies, and even between countries. The government suppressing freedom of speech in the interest of national security would only prevent them from expressing their basic human rights, and national security or not, it'll come out one way or another. As long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, or consist of confidential federal information, this right should not be suppressed, in any form, any where.

  • Hello from the outside

    Hello from the outside Ir mist have cose ta thousand tkirewi fsldir sieo ss kss jsie ss s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s d d d d d d d d d d d d d dddd d d d d

  • Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that governement should protect rather than limit.

    Freedom of speech is a basic right that ensures people are allowed to express their opinions, popular or not. Freedom of speech prevents abuse of power and the government should be acting to protect this right. Government suppressing this right in order to allegedly protect national security creates a new threat in the abuse of power and limitation of rights and doesn't guarantee improved national security interests and should not be happening. Exceptions to freedom of speech exists, such as falsely accusing and threatening others but these do not change in accordance to perceived national security interests.

  • Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of Speech should not be suppressed because it is the basic right of every American citizen as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The Freedom of Information Act further protects the American citizen freedom of speech in regards to divulging federal and national information.

  • Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a basic American right and should not be suppressed because of national security. The government has in place what is called the Freedom of Information Act which further provides the freedom of speech on issues on a national level. Freedom of speech should not get suppressed.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.