Nowadays, freedom of speech is generally considered something clear and self-explanatory. If I were to define the concept of freedom of speech, I would call it the ability of a person to express themselves and their thoughts independently of circumstances. This ability does have many benefits from the viewpoint of an individual. However, there might be certain drawbacks on a grander scale if the freedom is absolute. In this context, I believe that a closer inspection of both sides of the spectrum will show that the true answer lies in balance.
Understanding the benefits of free expression is significantly easier from a single person’s perspective. It goes hand-to-hand with various individual rights and is deemed a sign of a developed society in many places across the globe (Kendrick, 2018). In addition, free thought expression greatly contributes to the individual’s confidence and self-esteem. In particular, it allows drawing attention to specific societal issues, ultimately resulting in an improvement in quality of life.
Nevertheless, what might be suitable for an individual does not necessarily bear the same value for other groups of people. Following this logic will allow the understanding of why the freedom of speech was suppressed in humanity’s early history – it can break the status quo. In some cases, it undermines authorities (Galileo affair); in other cases, it allows the spread of ideas dangerous to society as a whole (various forms of extremism). It is the maintenance of order that holds the community together, which makes speech restrictions reasonable, if not necessary.
Overall, the contrast between absolute freedom and absolute restriction will show the negativity behind the word “absolute.” The ability of anyone to speak anything breeds chaos; the inability to speak at least something results in a total suppression of individuality and human rights. Consequently, a bridge should be built that connects the two concepts, providing the needed compromise. In this context, the purpose of compromising lies in the exclusion of dangerous absolutism.
Freedom of speech, being naturally controversial, dramatically benefits from balancing its two extreme states – absolute freedom and absolute restriction. In this case, the individuals will be provided with the desired freedom, which is the natural privilege of everyone. At the same time, society as a whole will be protected from instability; the stability, in turn, will ensure the protection of individuals, either from external threats or from themselves.
References
Kendrick, L. (2018). Use your words: On the “speech” in” freedom of speech”. Michigan Law Review, 116(5), 667-704. Web.