Should freedom of speech be restricted to social norms?

Asked by: ark200
  • Because it is safe

    Hurting established social norms is not safe. It is true not only to this day but also in earlier days. Today we see many people who challenged social norms [established social practice] are persecuted. For example: julian assange, bradley manning, salman rushdie, edward snowden, taslima nasreen etc. Some of them are chased, others are deported or on the hit list.

    So i think that freedom of speech must be restricted to established social norm in order to have safety in life.

  • No, or it isn't actually free

    Freedom of speech is a basic right; you have the right to your own opinion, and you have the right to privately and publicly share and express that opinion. You can't put a restriction on what opinions one is allowed to hold, or the views that one is allowed to share with others, or the entire purpose becomes moot. Freedom of speech is designed to maximize individual freedom and promote the basic right of individuals to hold their own opinions, regardless of whether those opinions are shared by society or not. Placing restrictions on this freedom misses the point in it's entirety.

  • Freedom of speech cannot be changed. The social norm should change to accommodate freedom of speech.

    If freedom of speech is restricted to social norms, then that would mean that social norms never change, and societies would never change. They would never change for the better, or for the worse. And even then, for the worse may be required to reach for the better. Our voices are keys that unlock change.
    Freedom of speech is a god-given right. Who is one to say that what one can say is forbidden? In order to keep freedom of speech in tact, it'd be better to in fact search a change in the social norm. We need to, as a society, think about how to respect one another, raise discipline, create awareness, and above all, to create understanding among individuals. Toleration - a core feature of liberalism: if we can simply respect what people have to say and do (as long as what they do does not physically harm another), we'll be that much closer to achieving a higher level of justice.

  • That Would Defeat the Purpose

    I think it is wrong to restrict people on what they can speak out about. Sure there are opinions I don't personally care to hear but it is your voice to say it with and not mine or anybodies to take from you and you shouldn't take that right from anybody else

  • Free speech is important precisely because it can challenge social norms

    Slavery used to be "social norms". Women not having the right to vote and being the property of their husbands was "social norms". Witch trials were "social norms".

    Anybody who says "yes" thinks we'd be better off if women couldn't vote and slavery was still legal or they naively think that our generation has absolutely everything correct, which is foolish nonsense.

  • There are many who would love to destroy freedom of speech with this restriction.

    If we are only allowed to say what other people agree with, how is that freedom of speech? " Majority rules" they say, but everyone is in the minority on something, and shouldn't be silenced. People who don't think for themselves and only regurgitate what they hear shouldn't be speaking anyway actually.

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