Should freedom of speech be limited?

Kaustubh Katdare · 2012-11-29T16:27:39+00:00

It's common for Governments to try and keep a check on what the people say about them, about their policies through various media. While freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of people, people themselves seem to be very divided about putting checks and limitations on freedom of speech. On one side there's a group that says there shouldn't be any limitation on what people can say. Everyone should be entitled to express their own thoughts through any media of their choice. On other side, there's group that thinks exactly opposite. They think freedom of speech is welcome but there must be a few limitations. The problem is that there aren't clearly laid rules that define what should be allowed and what shouldn't be. The problem gets more complicated because the moment you put 'rules' on freedom of speech, it's not freedom of speech in true sense. The aim of this debate is to see what's the collective opinion of CEans about this issue that affects each one of us in some way. If you believe that there should be limitations on freedom of speech - tell us what limitations do you propose. If you belong to the first group, then tell us why anyone should be able to say/express anything? Does this approach create problems and how to tackle with them. Debate On!

Should freedom of speech be limited?

Kaustubh Katdare
@thebigk

Updated: Oct 17, 2024

Views: 1.7K

It's common for Governments to try and keep a check on what the people say about them, about their policies through various media. While freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of people, people themselves seem to be very divided about putting checks and limitations on freedom of speech.

On one side there's a group that says there shouldn't be any limitation on what people can say. Everyone should be entitled to express their own thoughts through any media of their choice.

On other side, there's group that thinks exactly opposite. They think freedom of speech is welcome but there must be a few limitations. The problem is that there aren't clearly laid rules that define what should be allowed and what shouldn't be. The problem gets more complicated because the moment you put 'rules' on freedom of speech, it's not freedom of speech in true sense.

The aim of this debate is to see what's the collective opinion of CEans about this issue that affects each one of us in some way. If you believe that there should be limitations on freedom of speech - tell us what limitations do you propose. If you belong to the first group, then tell us why anyone should be able to say/express anything? Does this approach create problems and how to tackle with them.

Debate On!

0

Replies

Howdy guest!

Dear guest, you must be logged-in to participate on CrazyEngineers. We would love to have you as a member of our community. Consider creating an account or login.

Replies

Pensu

Member • Nov 30, 2012

I guess I am on the other side. There should be freedom of speech, but not complete freedom, at least not in our country. We have a lot of fools (no offence anyone!) here, and a lot of other fools to follow them. Basically I am also not clear about what rules or restrictions should be there, but I am sure that a complete freedom of speech is going to harm this country.

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel
pratap singh, upendra

Member • Dec 1, 2012

Well according to me I think that there should be a complete freedom of speech under every circumstance and situation, only to ensure that every action,event taking place around us must be properly fed with a reaction. There ought to be a feedback in any system be it political, finance, technical or any other.

The folks that think the other way out(those who believe in certain limitations to be put on the freedom of speech) actually say so because they try to safeguard the well being of the individuals, their community etc. under each and every situation. But the fact remains that the state of well-being of the community actually depends on no-one except the community itself.

I am an Indian, so I would like to support my view by taking into consideration the various related to Indian community itself. Consider a statement that provokes communal riots to take place in the country. The riots will actually take place when the community feels that it is being offended. If the people are intelligent enough to understand that these statements are made just to bring about unrest in the community and that both the parties will be harmed by the results of the riot, then in that case they will remain in perfect brotherhood despite such provocations.

In a nutshell it is not the comments that create problems to any society it but the way it is interpreted that actually matters. No one can in-flare such riots if people are reasonable enough to understand the mishaps that they may actually create to themselves and the society.

I would also like to request every one reading this article to ensure that your personal comments do not hurt the feeling of other people for if you have got a freedom of speech so is the person against whom you are commenting.. So learn to respect the constitution and if anything goes against it; do oppose against it. That is what I call complete freedom of speech

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel
Pensu

Member • Dec 1, 2012

#-Link-Snipped-# agreed, but I guess you can see the problem in your point itself. The people are not intelligent, and thats the main issue. We dont have that kind of awareness in the country. If you comment something about a religion or a big leader, riots are bound to happen. We first need to make people intellectual enough to understand the difference between offensive content and personal view, may be then we can talk about complete freedom of speech.

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel
Gandalf

Member • Dec 1, 2012

One of the key things we as Indians should notice is that our constitution is not adequately modified to the current Systems and Requirements and Hence people are taking undue advantage of it. People who devised it then could not have imagined discoveries , innovations and technologies present today

Modifications has to be passed in Parliament and discussed upon there, where as our parliament has spent more time in logjams and disruptions.

"But we do not have strong and good politicians in our country " and of course there are only a few
"Who want to venture in Public Service by being a politician due to its current state"

We miss Decision maker and strong politicians in India, One of which is "Indira Gandhi" admired all round the world

Now, coming to main point, Anything given without restrictions is not valued in India ,
In address to the students at her school, Suu Kyi of Myanmar said that we are fighting for our right to democracy there and is inspired by Indian Freedom Struggle and you should be happy that you are enjoying it here.

But, Those struggle's are left in History books alone, and we have forgotten how we got the rights,
So in order we should know value of our rights, we should put in restrictions on the rights and inculcate them in all young minds

"We know its value, only when we have lost it or we have restrictions on it" is my limited point

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel
Sahithi Pallavi

Member • Dec 22, 2012

I just want to say one thing.
Unlimited freedom of anything will be misusen

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel
Ramani Aswath

Member • Dec 23, 2012

Unlimited freedom plus total responsibility. There are libel laws that cover personal abuse.
Making inflammatory remarks in a potentially 'powder keg' kind of situation is not appropriate.
Ultimately it becomes the individuals responsibility. Best option is to avoid shooting off the mouth. Take a while to think, put yourself on the receiving end and then make your point using neutral words.

The Golden Rule still is,'If you have nothing to say, say nothing'.

Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Cancel