Introduction
Contemporary society rests on the critical importance of fundamental human rights. Every individual is born to be free and enjoy all benefits that are available in the modern world. This statement can be considered a motto of our time impacting the functioning of states and their governments. The constitution, or the basic law, also guarantees the observation of human rights and emphasizes their fundamental role in the functioning of societies. However, the diversity in people’s views, mentalities, and cultures might precondition the clash of visions. In such cases, the rights of people might serve as the source of conflicts as they might infringe on the interests of some groups. From this perspective, the freedom of expression can be viewed as a contradictory concept as thoughts expressed by individuals might hurt other groups and trigger the development of conflicts.
Main body
Freedom of expression is a term that is also known as freedom of speech. In simple words, it means that every person has a natural right to express his/her feelings, ideas, and thoughts on different objects, themes, and issues. It is a way to protect the diversity of views and ensure that controversial or dissenting opinions will exist in society, and initiate the debates needed to avoid the dominance of one idea with no alternatives. It is an effective mechanism for discussing various aspects of social life, policy, and other factors vital for further evolution. In such a way, the major goal of the freedom of expression is to contribute to the rise of communities, improved understanding of different aspects, and the existence of opposition that will drive change by outlining issues that should be discussed.
However, as stated previously, the freedom to express thoughts can sometimes be dangerous. Protecting the rights of people also provides them with an opportunity to criticize others and hurt their interests. It preconditions the increased topicality of offensive speech, or speech that might cause someone to feel angry, hurt, and stressed. At the same time, there is also hate speech, which can be viewed regarding the previous term. The only difference between these two forms is how the words of a speaker are perceived. Thus, a group or an individual might subjectively believe that strong arguments are directed on them, and the words are hateful. In such a case, it is possible to admit a case of hate speech. However, because of the absence of a clear definition of hate speech and objective determinants that would help to differentiate between terms, the question is disputable, and the offensive and hate speeches remain close notions with the only difference lies in perception.
At first glance, hate speech seems a dangerous phenomenon that might trigger the emergence of conflicts and the growth of dissatisfaction among individuals. However, it is a powerful tool that is needed to dispute with individuals and protect positions that might be beneficial in the future. Society functions in accordance with laws and policies that are established by dominating parties or forces. In most cases, they create the basis for the further improvement and achievement of positive outcomes. Certainly, every person makes mistakes, which means that it is impossible to avoid them in policymaking. Moreover, definitely, people can be tempted by the opportunity to abuse power and generate additional benefits for themselves. Under these conditions, hate speech becomes a tool that might help to criticize the existing position, attract the public attention to a particular problem, and ensure that there will be a positive shift in the future.
Conclusion
Altogether, it is possible to conclude that hate speech is an integral part of freedom of expression. People should not be deprived of an opportunity to criticize other individuals if they find their actions inappropriate or disappointing. The existence of this tool guarantees that some dominant ideas can be debated and discussed, which is vital for the further rise of society. Definitely, all people make mistakes, and authorities or policymakers can also be wrong, which increases the importance of hate speech and provides other individuals with an opportunity to attain positive change and protect that position that will replace the old one because of its irrelevance, outdated nature, or inability to meet the needs of the majority. Resting on these arguments, it is possible to admit the increased importance of offensive speeches and their fundamentality for the contemporary world.
Post Script
Analyzing my arguments, I think that I managed to use deductive reasoning when cogitating about the importance of hate speech in the modern world. My major premise was that all people could make mistakes, which means that people responsible for critical decision-making can also be mistaken, and it is vital to be able to dispute with them and discuss solutions or strategies promoted by these individuals. Moreover, the prohibition of such type of speech can be viewed as a violation of basic human rights, which is also unacceptable in a democratic society. For this reason, I think my arguments were solid, and the use of deductive reasoning helped to show my point and justify my assumption related to the necessity of hate speech and the importance of the role they play today.