Introduction
Freedom of speech is something that is practiced in many countries today. Most governments have their bills amended in support of freedom of speech. However, there are various developments in communication such that most nations are moving towards amending these bills again in support of censorship of free exercise of speech. Free speech refers to the right of an individual to express their opinions without any censorship from the government (Kevin, p31). Censorship of speech simply refers to the act of suppressing the freedom of free speech. Freedom of speech has been very affected today and in whichever way we look at it, no country exclusively practices free speech (Henry, p8). This is because some individuals will take advantage of free speech and they will deliver speeches such as hate speech, incitement speeches, or speeches that do not have any supporting facts. For this reason, the government must move to protect its citizens from such speeches. This paper intends to analyses censorship of free speech and why or why not it should be supported.
Why support freedom of speech?
Expression of truth
Free speech should not be censored since it allows individuals to freely express their views and ideas concerning different subjects. Through such expression it allows the society to be very informed about the happenings that are unfolding within the society. This is especially important when it comes to the government. Society is not always aware of what happens behind the curtains of the government. Through free speech, we can discover the truth. With censorship, such truth and information may never get to the public.
Self-governance
A state that lacks freedom of speech lacks self-governance. Having self-governance means being able to make decisions based on the information that you have. With free speech, the individuals in the society are always informed and they can make very informed decisions (Alan, p61). This is especially important during the time of elections when then society is electing its leaders. Through the freedom of speech, society can influence the policies that the government is undertaking. People are more enlightened about what they want and they can campaign for it. Without free speech, society will be afraid of expressing themselves and this means that the government will never respond to their grievances.
Democracy
Free speech is an avenue of attaining democracy within a country. This can be traced to the days of Martin Luther King who was an eloquent leader and made very powerful speeches in a bid to attaining democracy. Martin’s speeches influenced a lot of people and he was able to compel the government to honor the civil rights of the people (Kevin, p39). If a government censors free speech it will be an avenue to dictatorship and authoritarian regimes. This again was observed during Hitler’s era who after using free speech to gain power retrieved and denied the freedom of speech to individuals. He only supported free speech on those agendas that were of interest to him. He knew the strength of the power of speech in attaining democracy and this would have been a threat to his dictatorial regime. Lack of free speech undermines the people’s human rights.
Accountability
The presence of free speech within a country will determine the quality of governance in that country (Alan, p75). Through free speech, individuals can criticize the performance of the government and also public officials. With such criticisms being allowed, the performance of the government is improved. The government and other people serving the public can be accountable for their actions. With censorship, the government easily escapes accountability by silencing its critics.
Social Interaction
Free speech allows individuals to improve their communication skills within society. Through free speech, they can establish new relationships within the society and also maintain the already established relationships. People can participate in the development of the nation and also the society through sharing of ideas and knowledge.
Why censor free speech?
Conflict of values and rights
Freedom of speech cannot be supported if it interferes with the values and the rights of the individuals within the society (Arthur, p63). For example, some individuals take advantage of the freedom of speech to spread bad morals such as pornographic materials and other unacceptable morals such as lesbianism and homosexuality. The government should censorship such motives of freedom of speech since this amounts to the spread of bad morals. The freedom of speech especially on the internet has been censured by the government to protect society from such information especially to the children and also teenagers who might engage in irresponsible behaviors upon exposure to such kind of information (Sunstein, p36). In other instances, it results in defamation of individuals within the society which is not acceptable. In such cases, the government should be supported in the censorship of free speech.
National security
Censoring of free speech is practiced by the government as a matter of protecting the public from insecurities that may be spread by individuals to the public (Erik, p16). Politicians are especially the ones who are greatly involved in this kind of censorship. If a politician is involved in giving hate speeches or speeches that incite people to go into war or commit crimes, they should be banned from exercising their freedom of speech. This is because such leaders may incite the society to get involved in crime if the motives they want to be achieved in the government are not accomplished according to their wishes. This may bring a lot of instability to the government and this is a major threat to the national security of a country.
Therefore censorship of freedom of speech should not always be viewed as a bad motive in the government. Sometimes it is done to protect the citizens of the country. This ensures public safety and thus people can confidently live in a safe environment (Arthur, p71). This can be traced to the days of Hitler. Hitler and his Nazi power rose to power due to their freedom of the press but this eventually led to the death of millions of people due to his dictatorship. If there had been censorship of the free press during that period, many lives would have been saved since his hate speeches would not have had such great influence on society.
Political propagandas
Free speech is just a platform used by politicians to spread their propaganda to society. The opposition to the government especially takes advantage of the situation to spread negative motives of the government which might lead to a lack of confidence in the government (Sunstein, p42). Through control of free speech, the government can defend its position to the people by avoiding the spread of such propaganda. Some politicians also use free speech to spread evil motives especially racial negativity (Arthur, p77). This might divide the people of one nation through cheap propaganda of favoritism towards some races. The government uses censorship to protect the citizens from being fed with such information. On the other hand, politicians only use free speech for their benefits for climbing the power ladder by creating and making promises to the public which will never be achieved. In this case, free speech encourages individuals to spread information that lacks facts and support. Whether it comes to fulfillment or not is not their problem as long as they achieved what they wanted from the public. The government should in such cases censor the spread of information that lacks facts since it adds no value to society (Erik, p25).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Censorship of free speech is of great disadvantage to society than benefits. It denies individuals the right to freely express and share ideas that are essential in the development of a nation. Free speech allows people to listen to a different view of individuals and make very informed decisions. With censorship, it amounts to selecting what people will talk and listen to. This amounts to manipulation of their decisions and thus dictatorship and lack of democracy. However, censorship is not evil in all circumstances. It serves an important role in maintaining national security and preserving the social values and morals of the society (Henry, p17).
Work cited
Alan Haworth. Free speech. Routledge, 1998, 54-78.
Arthur James Anderson. Problems in intellectual freedom and censorship. R. R. Bowker Co. 2001, p62-93.
Erik Ringmar. Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet. Anthem Press, 2007, p14-28.
Henry Reichman. Censorship and the freedom of speech. ALA Editions, 2001, p8-17.
Hoffman, Frank. Intellectual Freedom and Censorship. The Scarecrow Press, 1989, p27-49.
Kevin C. O’Rourke. John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory. Routledge, 2001, p31-57.
Sava. The Suppressed Serbian Voice and the Free Press in America. Sage publications, P23-43.
Sunstein, Cass. Democracy and the problem of free speech. McGraw Hill, 1995, p34-46.