Is Freedom Of Speech Always A Good Thing Essay

Artur Zaba

11/19/2015

Low Advanced Writing

Bonnie Harley

Second Assignment

1st Draft

Is freedom of speech always a good thing?

The expression of freedom is a tolerance human right, referring to the possibility of freely expressing own views. It is usually combined with the right to information. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in legislation in Democratic States and international instruments, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But unlimited freedom of speech means “de facto” unlimited freedom granted to destruction, killing and hurting, not physically but in the spiritual, psychological and emotional realms.

Traditional thinking about the recognition by civil authorities of the right to unrestricted freedom of speech can be seen as a hideous mistake in the domestic or even on the international level, favoring the spread of evil in society, even among liberals. “Regarding calls to violence or hatred, or threats, the same way, it's not really the opinions exposed that are the issue, but the speech's consequences, in that case hate, violence and fear.” According to the most wide spread

news today, freedom to promote various attitudes and behavior is the supreme value in revelation to other goods which the State must protect the sanctity. At most, it is recognized that freedom of expression may be restricted by law in some of the most extreme, very rarely existing cases.
“… You can’t believe what you read in … newspapers presented as facts.” This kind of argument is most evident when public opinion is moved by further news about the excesses of various artists’ profanity or exceeding by pop culture, in the frontiers of the visibility of sex and violence. A good example is the famous case of insults by the Polish lead singer of the band “Behemoth”, Adam “Nergal” Darski, who the Holy Bible torn to shreds on the eyes of thousands, of people and called a “shitty book.” Defenders of this blasphemer claimed that although you may not agree with extreme excesses, such as that by Mr. Darski, that the State has no right to prohibit and punish his action, because of the legal protection of “freedom of expression” is more important than the guarantee of respect for one’s religious feelings. Another example is the case in the French Newspaper “Charlie Chebdo”, where the journalists offended “Allah”, and later Muslim terrorists got revenge.
A very famous Polish singer, Czeslaw Niemen, has sung in his song that a strange world contains several bad things …, “But it is often that someone kills with a bad word, like a knife.” How much these words express well about the power and importance of words. Freedom of speech can not only heal and built, but also destroy, hurt or even “kill”. And unrestricted freedom of speech means unlimited freedom granted to destruction, killing and hurting. This is not killing in the physical way, but in the spiritual, psychological and emotional area. After all, mentally weaker or people with personal problems, under the influence of bad words, can commit suicide, and inspired by the irresponsible statements of others, are able to physically injure and kill their neighbors.
Naturally, in the XXI century, freedom of speech is needed and should be protected by law in a reasonable range.

“Freedom of speech should definitely stay! ... Without freedom of speech newspapers and Internet companies would go bankrupt” Obviously, journalists, editors or artists may express their own opinion to, e.g. reveal corruption in power, expose injustice or criticize wrong decisions, but they need to be wise and do in a right way, I mean politically correct. Freedom of speech can also be very useful in the conduct of various discussions about the nature of ideological, political or world views. The nation that civil authorities should recognize and protect the freedom of speech and expression, without limitation or limited only by some very rare exceptions, is simply

ridiculous.