The argument that if Meletus, Anytus, and the jury find him guilty, they will injure themselves more than they will injure Socrates was based on two main elements. The first is the fact that Meletus had argued that all other people had a positive influence on youth in Athens apart from Socrates (Plato, 2021), which was proven to be a lie because other convicted felons were in remand. The second was that if Socrates were to harm the youth of Athens by poisoning their minds, then he would also be hurting himself as he would be poisoning the very community he lives in and depends on (Plato, 2021). These two arguments combined link to the fact that if the jury and the accusers were to punish Socrates, then the youth who he had supposedly led astray would feel injustice and their action would make the whole town suffer.
The argument Socrates gave is convincing. This is because he tied it to everyday decision-making by the member of the jury. As stated, he asked which people had a positive influence on the community, and Meletus in an attempt to make Socrates “look bad” stated everyone apart from him (Socrates). This argument was deemed unattainable. It can be argued that Socrates’ position relates to freedom of speech because he had the right to speak with his community members about anything as long as it did not harm anyone in the process. Further, Socrates believed that the state had to permit speech that may challenge the fundamental values and beliefs of the society in order to advance their society. He believed that it is only through questioning and challenging the norm that the community would be able to flourish.
Reference
Plato. (2021). The Apology. Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing.