The right to freedom of one’s speech is the foundation of the United States. Throughout this country’s history, different political sides used it to protect their ideals and resolve issues peacefully (Strossen 15-16). This notion is vital for liberating people from oppression for their opinions. Punishing free speech is counterproductive for society, as it promotes censorship of ideas that are disfavored, thus impeding one’s basic human rights.
Permissibility of self-expression is essential for raising questions that may be uncomfortable yet require the public’s attention. There will always be individuals who will disagree with the majority, yet curbing their rights for the safety of the people is detrimental to the principles of liberty and democracy (Strossen 23). Depending on the political party in question, both left- and right-wing supporters can perceive their freedom of speech as the main tool through which they can drive change. Free communication shows respect for personhood, and the low-value expressions will be disregarded in a debate without laws that punish them directly (Howard 99). Neutrality is a default state of any discussion between opposites and serves as a basic principle of modern society.
Punishing free speech can lead to the rise of an authoritarian government, as the opposition can be efficiently silenced if the number of hate speech laws continues to increase. Strossen argues that laws that limit one’s freedom of speech gradually increase the government’s ability to “suppress any speech whose message is disfavored, disturbing, or feared” (37). Such a result of an excessive prohibition can cause society to be subjected to controlled propaganda that will not be countered through opposition.
The current distinction between free speech and hate speech seeks to replace one’s moral values with legal barriers. Such a prohibition disables the opportunity to converse with those who express hateful comments in an attempt to reconsider their views while antagonizing them by taking away their emotional outlet (Howard 105). It is the duty of listeners to agree or disagree with a speaker, yet they should not seek to punish an orator whose opinion they perceive as incorrect. A proper stance on an issue is bound to prevail through an in-depth public discourse, which is impossible to happen without free speech. The response is a vital part of any conversation, and punishment is not a response that bears the power to change one’s views.
The issue with hate speech is often mentioned by the proponents of limitations on the free expression of self. Howard states that “counter-speech” might be the best answer to this problem (94). The solution that is applied by force puts the situation in a dangerous direction where people who are unable to express themselves freely will seek alternative ways to do so. Punishing different ideas for being stated is counterproductive to a society that aims to establish moral values that are based on civilized discourse rather than authoritarian practices.
In conclusion, free speech is a critical part of the United States, and punishing it is counterproductive to the peaceful development of ideas, discussions, and the liberal society at large. Prohibiting people from expressing themselves is a feature of authoritarian regimes that leads to one-sided arguments and decisions. In a debate, people will be able to find a common solution and resolve their differences better than through legal tools. Hate speech is an issue of flawed perception that can be changed efficiently via discussions rather than strict punishments.
Works Cited
Howard, Jeffrey W. “Free Speech and Hate Speech.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22, no. 1, 2019, pp. 93-109.
Strossen, Nadine. Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. Oxford UP, 2018.