People should have the freedom to express their ideas however they want and there should be no government restriction on what they can say, To what extent do you agree or disagree.
Answer:
There is an obvious paradox inherent in the two conflicting principles; freedom of speech versus a right to privacy and an associated principle to restrict what people can and cannot say. On the one hand it has been argued that there should be an inherent right for people to be able to express their opinions and ideas without any kind of restrictions on what they say. On the other hand, there is an equally valid argument that there must be some kind of limitation on this right otherwise the very fabric of society could be under threat. he well know scholar of jurisprudence expressed this issue most succinctly, stating that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”; in other words there need to be some kind of fettering of the right to freedom of speech. The fact that we are dealing with the abrogation of a basic human right means that we need to take a very cautious approach.
The first amendment of the US constitution is perhaps particularly well known as a guarantee of the right to freedom of speech. Free speech is a basic and fundamental right for all people and it vital in any kind of democratic state. People need to be able to pass comment on politicians and other public figures without fear of legal reprisals; newspapers and the media also need to be able to report news which is sometimes adversarial and critical with regard to the government, companies or even specific individuals. Examples in the recent past are easy to cite; there have been various political scandals such as the cash for questions affair in the British Parliament where members of parliament were paid by businessmen to put forward questions to the government of the day on their behalf in return for some kind of financial incentive. These kinds of scandals are often exposed by newspapers or other public minded individuals; in the Internet age this would be on website, on social networking sites or even on Blogs. It is clear that a freedom to speak one’s mind is vital in a democratic country and is also integral to ensure the proper functioning of the rule of law.
Limits have been placed on what people are able to say which can severely hamper people’s ability to express themselves freely. Slander and libel law make it a civil offence to say something that is not true about a person that might damage their reputation. Laws against pornography and blasphemy also exist to try to protect the social and moral underpinnings of society. Governments often place prohibitions on expression in the national interest or due to security concerns. There are in fact many restrictions on what people can say and how they are allowed to articulate their thoughts and ideas.
Clearly, the two positions we have considered are polar opposites. Generally there should be no restriction on how people express themselves and what they are able to say but I think that the best approach to finding middle ground between the two principles is to follow the “harm principle”. In other words, people do have an absolute right to say anything they want as long as it is not to the detriment of another individual or a threat to the security of the country. If there is serious potential for harm that is not then counterbalanced by there being a genuine public interest or some other justification, for example to bring information into the public domain such as when a crime has been committed but had hitherto been unreported; there must be some kind of government restrictions on what can be said but not so that it would threaten the ability to bring place before the public any information or facts that they need to know. (645 words)
Answer:
There is an obvious paradox inherent in the two conflicting principles; freedom of speech versus a right to privacy and an associated principle to restrict what people can and cannot say. On the one hand it has been argued that there should be an inherent right for people to be able to express their opinions and ideas without any kind of restrictions on what they say. On the other hand, there is an equally valid argument that there must be some kind of limitation on this right otherwise the very fabric of society could be under threat. he well know scholar of jurisprudence expressed this issue most succinctly, stating that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”; in other words there need to be some kind of fettering of the right to freedom of speech. The fact that we are dealing with the abrogation of a basic human right means that we need to take a very cautious approach.
The first amendment of the US constitution is perhaps particularly well known as a guarantee of the right to freedom of speech. Free speech is a basic and fundamental right for all people and it vital in any kind of democratic state. People need to be able to pass comment on politicians and other public figures without fear of legal reprisals; newspapers and the media also need to be able to report news which is sometimes adversarial and critical with regard to the government, companies or even specific individuals. Examples in the recent past are easy to cite; there have been various political scandals such as the cash for questions affair in the British Parliament where members of parliament were paid by businessmen to put forward questions to the government of the day on their behalf in return for some kind of financial incentive. These kinds of scandals are often exposed by newspapers or other public minded individuals; in the Internet age this would be on website, on social networking sites or even on Blogs. It is clear that a freedom to speak one’s mind is vital in a democratic country and is also integral to ensure the proper functioning of the rule of law.
Limits have been placed on what people are able to say which can severely hamper people’s ability to express themselves freely. Slander and libel law make it a civil offence to say something that is not true about a person that might damage their reputation. Laws against pornography and blasphemy also exist to try to protect the social and moral underpinnings of society. Governments often place prohibitions on expression in the national interest or due to security concerns. There are in fact many restrictions on what people can say and how they are allowed to articulate their thoughts and ideas.
Clearly, the two positions we have considered are polar opposites. Generally there should be no restriction on how people express themselves and what they are able to say but I think that the best approach to finding middle ground between the two principles is to follow the “harm principle”. In other words, people do have an absolute right to say anything they want as long as it is not to the detriment of another individual or a threat to the security of the country. If there is serious potential for harm that is not then counterbalanced by there being a genuine public interest or some other justification, for example to bring information into the public domain such as when a crime has been committed but had hitherto been unreported; there must be some kind of government restrictions on what can be said but not so that it would threaten the ability to bring place before the public any information or facts that they need to know. (645 words)
No comments:
Post a Comment