An Analysis Of Freedom Of Speech Philosophy Essay

Freedom of speech is freedom to speak anything without any censorship. The freedom of speech is not an absolute in any country and it is rightly common subject to limitations. Freedom of speech is recognized by human rights and it is recognized in international rights law. Freedom of speech is synonymous with liberty and is fundamental individual right in a free society. Freedom of speech is assumed as primary tenet and principle in which there would be no liberty. Speech important in democracies because debate and discussion are essential properties in democratic society. Speech is merely the articulation of thoughts if it is banned, then the thoughts are also banned because thought is denied expression. Freedom of speech, highly restrictive censorship laws remain in place. Freedom of information and speech are permitted on round state security and public morality. (Carens, J., 2006) Freedom of speech is guaranteed in virtually every international human rights instrument and in the constitution of every liberal democracy. Freedom is never in an absolute form and it is seen as a negative freedom and opposed to a positive right.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

Freedom of speech is freedom of thoughts and debate and discussion are necessary to arrive at knowledge and to achieve any progress. Adaptability is the key in freedom of speech it requires a diversity of views and ideas. (Samuel Johnson, 1780)”Every human has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it”. Freedom of speech has been restricted and even prohibited in the threats from domestic and foreign enemies. In some cases freedom of speech as been restricted and prohibited for free speech when there is a danger of perception to the security. During the periods of political turmoil and upheaval and during periods of war freedom of speech has been seen as a threat to national security and has been restricted. Example: – The NATO bombing meant to silence of speech to deny freedom of speech and to silence dissent of any kind.


Freedom of speech that enables other rights to be protected and exercised. The enjoyment of right to the freedom of expression is central to achieving individual freedom and developing democracy and plays a critical role in causes of poverty. It makes electoral democracy meaningful and builds public trust in administration. Freedom of speech increases the knowledge of information and participation within a society and also secure external checks on state accountability. Freedom of expression is also essential to the exercise of freedom of religion. If there is no right of freedom of expression, then people are not to free to manifest their religion.


The freedom of speech is restricted in order to protect the rights of others and public order if it is in a democratic society and it is done by law.


Protecting the right to equality, the right to mental and physical integrity and right to be free from discrimination and ultimately the right to life as hate speech have to be often associated to ethnic cleansing, wars. Speech regulations may constitute a legitimate and potentially necessary restriction to freedom of expression.


Freedom of speech clearly prohibits government from punishing individuals for their religious beliefs which are privately and public held. Freedom of speech should also protect the right of individuals to criticize government policy and leaders. In every person, ethnic and interest group is out to promote its own self interest then there is no hope for the protection of the freedom of expression. Gender and sex should not be treated as priority rights, when they are seen as rights any regarding to them is treated as intolerance and hate.

Freedom of expression is precious and deserves to be diligently protected. People should have an equal voice in debates of family issues. People as equal are means not only respecting views we agree with more clash with our convictions. Freedom of speech needs to be robust and wide open debate on public issues.


Freedom of speech requires a social context in which individuals are permitted to voice their thoughts, almost all everyone will agree. In which dissidents are bounded or otherwise physically prevented from producing dissenting expression in which they do not have freedom of speech.

Example: – When the dictators allow the dissidents to speak, other expressive gestures. Speakers are now free to make whatever sound and gestures they like. But the obliteration prevents those sounds and gestures from ever reaching an audience. It is widely thought that censorship of this and more traditional sorts undermine from freedom of speech. In which poverty, illiteracy, lack of self confidence is fear of speaking and can prevent people from distributing words. The wide distribution of speech cannot take place in a society where there lacks of basic telecommunication were the distribution words take place.


Free speech focus on the distributive dimension, to the extent that there constraints and limits on the distribution of the words. Actions that prevent or limit the distribution of speech certainly make speech less free. Speakers have no access to the means of communication are less free to speak. When a speaker says anything can be widely distributed as you like but freedom of distribution such meaningless saying does not count as freedom to speak.


All ideas are freely expressed considered and debated by rational individuals. Free distribution and discussion rational agents will choose to agree with the true ideas in the market place. The free market place an idea of defence of free speech is not only justification offered for free speech. The argument from democracy, the argument from toleration and the argument from equal concern and respect, amongst other. To concentrate on the market place of ideas justification is here because of its centrality in the debate also because we think at least some of the other justifications are connected to it interesting ways.


Free speech is that it is an arguable instrumental in securing good in overall citizens. Good consequences of free speech must be defended by showing their free speech in the realisation of overall good in society. Free speech will be the hostage of empirical facts to everyone in the society to know about it. (Mill, 1859)If a citizen can spread any information and advance criticisms of the prevailing view is something like free marketplace of ideas. The true beliefs are in turns of the best instruments for securing the overall human welfare. Other things being equal at least we ought to maximise welfare and we allow to everyone to speak freely in the welfare.

It is true that free speech generates a lot of noise and gives much airtime to false views or irrelevant truths. Free speech allows for the occasional very important but unpopular truth to reach the public ear and become focus on an open public debate. The unpopular truth that in power in various positions do not want disclosed.

(Amartya Sen 1994, 1999) Since India’s independence the advent of free press the famines that used to plague the country under colonial rule have disappeared mainly because the free press now function as kind of early warning system allowing information about impending by those in power. This function of free speech is a kind of safety valve. The important facts and problems will run long at least by getting public attention for the negative effects due to noise. Free speech is a perfect for getting the truth. A system of extensive free speech is the worst system for getting the important truth.