||This is for a Debate Competition||
Topic : "It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech."
You have to write in the favour of this topic.
*I need it by today.*
Answers
Freedom of speech, this right binds whole country together several pearls in a single thread. This right is an important pillar in whole constitutional base on which the strong nation stands.
However, sometimes this important pillar fell itself making the nation weak. What we mean by freedom of speech? The right of people to speak freely without any suppression by government or thrid party. Thus, people can express their openion and thoughts what they feel. But in the practical view, this right is hunted every day and misued by the people and parties.
When people get all right to speak what they want, they often demoralize the nation by offensive words, blame every work of government. People often speak against nation even on the basis of human rights and freedom of speech. This is why the most of issues within a country disturbs the people peace and national image.
Since, every right has its merit and demerits so the human rights also stands on same contradiction. On one hand these rights make the country Democratic while on other hand it also make the nation week.
Thus, some freedom and some restrictions are needed in right to freedom of speech. Freedom for human rights, and restrictions for national image and respect. Because a strong nation not only lies on its rights but also on its rules and restrictions. Live freedom, understand freedom!
Have great future ahead!
Hello ,
Sometimes , the government restrict freedom of speech
I think that the freedom of expression is very important for everyone.
What is the fundamental importance of freedom of expression?
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democracy and is also a condition for the exercise of many other rights, but not all. Freedom of expression is the first right of expression of opinions, ideas and intimate beliefs. On the one hand, it is linked to freedom of conscience and the heart of reform in Europe as early as the 16th century
This general principle of freedom of expression applies differently from one society to another. What are the great traditions in this matter? For example, is there a difference between the United States and Europe? And does Quebec stand out?
The principle of freedom of expression is simple. It may conflict with other fundamental rights and is therefore subject to different interpretations depending on the political and legal cultures. Is the one-is-a-limitation of the liberty of expression: the security and respect of people (or the protection of the social conditions of self-esteem). In other words, in democracy we recognize that every person has the right to be protected in his physical integrity and his morale.
In the United States, freedom of expression is more widespread in the countries of continental Europe, particularly in France, Germany and Austria. The history of American case law is complex, but it can be said that freedom of participation is highly valued, as is freedom of conscience, which is inseparable from the right to externalize one's beliefs. The only limit to the expression of political opinions, even if they are racist, it is -real, manifest and imminent. Europeans have a great importance and a great protection of their moral integrity, their respect before the people, their right not to be intimidated or publicly insulted. The history of Nazism has considerable weight in this difference in legal culture. On this issue, Quebec is much closer to Europe than to the United States.
Is there a difference between speech and freedom of expression? The forms of visual expressions, such as caricatures, statues or flags, have a particular problem?
The tensions that are regularly seen in Europe about the caricatures that are staged by Muslims and that are in fact the imperfect application of the law are not stigmatized in public. An important part of the Muslims, in France for example, feels deeply insulted by degraded representations in a society where they are already in a situation of equality and discrimination. This raises the problem of the status of visual representations that are ambiguously conveyed by ideas and that diffuse a negative image of certain groups. But precisely, this ambiguity is essential, it is more difficult to interpret the meaning of a caricature than the meaning of a proposition. Visual representations are not reducible to opinion, much less to argumentation.
The case of public monuments, like the statues at the heart of the Charlottesville battle, is different. The monuments are historical monuments and they testify to the way in which a community is conceived its official history. Or communities change and fragment, and debates about history are constitutive of their identity. There are always several historical stories that are often conflicting and irreconcilable. In Charlottesville, the dominant story of slavery is challenged by part of the population, who wants to publicly write another story. One can understand the resistance of the other part of the population, who is attached to this story and who does not give up on their history and identity. It seemed that the compromise on slavery was now obsolete and, in any period of historical transition, on the statutes of this society.
Hope it help you
By KaiMaster :)