Why is freedom of speech so important

The problem is that filtering out this information would be an issue of freedom of expression, so it becomes very difficult for digital platforms to find middle ground. Lately, however, Facebook and Twitter have been trying to screen for fake news, which is explained in more detail in this Forbes article. As described by professors at the University of Bristol in our open step about free speech and the internet , the internet provides a platform for those otherwise denied a voice. Rather than just media companies and journalists being the information providers, we are offered perspectives from ordinary citizens.

This can be incredibly powerful in certain instances, such as when people are experiencing abuses of power by their government, police, or authorities. The power of storytelling online cannot be underestimated. However, the internet also encourages the free sharing of information and opinions in more ordinary circumstances — take Wikipedia, for example, which is written, edited and checked by anyone who wants to contribute.

This is an example of moderation being carried out by ordinary people instead of the state. The same can be said for forums such as Reddit. One of the most widely discussed critiques of unlimited free speech is that it can condone and amplify hate speech.

Hate speech can be defined as speech that is abusive and threatening towards a certain group of people, generally based on prejudices related to race, gender, sexuality, religion, or disability.

This is an argument often uttered by those in favour of complete freedom of speech, including hate speech. However, people may disagree with this, arguing that a clearer line should be drawn between stating dislike and inciting violence. If nothing is off-limits, where does it end? The phenomenon has been exacerbated by the relative anonymity that is allowed to the haters by the Internet.

Censorship is often talked about in relation to free speech because people feel that they are being unfairly censored online in violation of their rights. Censorship can be defined as the suppression of information, though it often relates to things like images, books, television, and other media.

It can be argued that some forms of censorship are necessary — for example, websites that children regularly access might censor inappropriate images.

However, the rules around censorship can be very hazy online, and censorship can even become oppressive in many circumstances. We go into more detail below. In our open step about censorship from the University of York, experts suggest that internet censorship is a direct threat to our freedom to access information and express ourselves. They state that the key issue is that there is no clear code of conduct on many digital platforms, meaning we rarely even know what they are restricting and blocking, or why.

Take the case of model, Nyome Nicholas-Williams, on Instagram last year. However, it is extremely easy to stumble across explicit nude images on Instagram, so we have to ask — why was Nyome censored? The problem is, that platforms like Instagram operate on a case-by-case basis when it comes to nudity, leaving a lot of room for bias, discrimination, and unfair censorship. On a different note entirely, we all know that censorship of information by the government can be extremely dangerous and damaging.

Extreme censorship is often a feature of dictatorship — citizens are not given access to news, books, certain information, and instead are fed propaganda. This is a direct violation of their human rights.

A very common societal phenomenon right now is cancel culture. Placing limitations on free speech via social or digital ostracisation is not a direct attack like censorship by the government or social media platforms, but can be an effective way of deplatforming an individual, group or corporation.

Usually, cancel culture is a response to someone saying or doing something objectionable. However, this really depends on the reasons why someone is being cancelled. The important thing to remember is that asking someone to be accountable for their actions is not regarded as the same as cancel culture.

A widely acknowledged view is that criticism of cancel culture should not be an excuse for not taking responsibility for damaging actions, just as the right to free speech should not be an excuse for spreading hatred. Hopefully, this has provided you with an interesting and informative overview of free speech. While freedom of speech is an essential part of the world we live in and a fundamental human right, it can still be useful to think about its limitations. The amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Most other Western countries guarantee freedom of speech, either in their constitutions or by legislative enactment. All countries, however, limit manifestations of free speech that are regarded as threatening the civil order or as obscene or slanderous. The extent to which speech is regarded as threatening or slanderous and the way in which limits are imposed are critical factors in determining the degree of free speech in a society.

The quest for free speech has a long, turbulent history. It has been one fundamental aspect of the individual's developing relationship both to the state and to society. Until the 17th century various forms of censorship of free speech were common; they were contested principally within the framework of larger issues of political and religious conflict. In England in the 17th century, however, freedom of speech began to assume its own importance.

John Milton wrote in his Areopagitica : "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Bill of Rights It was to become an integral part of constitutional law even in countries that do not in reality permit free speech.

And it gained international recognition with the United Nations' proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights In the United States freedom of speech and the constitutional limits to it have been defined, in practice, by rulings of the Supreme Court. Originally the free-speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment applied only to acts of Congress.

In the 20th century, however, the Supreme Court began to interpret the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to mean that the states are also bound by the provisions of the 1st Amendment. This was one of the major new doctrines of Gitlow v.

New York Restrictions on freedom of speech have occurred most often in time of war or national emergency. The Alien and Sedition Acts of were the first incursions by Congress on this freedom. These laws were never tested in the courts and were allowed to expire after several years. The first clear-cut test came over the Espionage Act passed by Congress during World War I; this act made it illegal to interfere with the recruitment or drafting of soldiers or to do anything adversely affecting military morale.

In Schenck v. United States the Court upheld the conviction of a socialist indicted under the act on the ground that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The "clear and present danger" doctrine became one of the tests the Court applied to subsequent cases involving freedom of speech.

Another test, which placed more restrictions on individual expression, was whether an expression had a tendency to lead to results that were bad for the public. In Gitlow v. New York the Court held: "a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or disturb the public peace.

In , Congress enacted the Smith Act. It declared unlawful the advocacy of overthrowing the government by force or violence. Eleven leaders of the Communist party were convicted under the Smith Act and appealed on the ground that it was unconstitutional.

But free speech is important even beyond its value to our liberty. The free exchange of ideas—even ones that are disagreeable—is key to future prosperity. Hoover Institution research fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why:.

Societies since the Enlightenment have progressed because of their willingness to question sacred cows, to foster critical thinking and rational debate. Societies that blindly respect old hierarchies and established ways of thinking, that privilege traditional norms and cower from giving offense, have not produced the same intellectual dynamism as Western civilization.

By allowing groups to express themselves out in the open, we can clearly see what they are saying, and, if we disagree, counter it. When society discourages dissent or governments dictate the bounds of acceptable opinions, there is less innovation, and incorrect yet popular ideas go unchallenged.

Economist Milton Friedman explains how diversity and freedom of all types are integral to a thriving society in this video:. Preserving our liberties and ensuring a vibrant, innovative society requires free speech. Well-intentioned efforts to protect people from speech that offends is thus a threat to our free and prosperous society.

What steps can we take to ensure free speech remains a cherished value for future generations? Hoover Institution research fellow David Davenport makes a case for reprioritizing civic education in US schools. Testing reveals that a shrinking number of students are knowledgeable about US history. As those roots decay, civic education withers.

Higher education also has a role to play. Public universities are generally bound by the First Amendment, but all universities—public and private—should remember the value academic freedom brings to campuses and to all of society. As Richard Epstein argues :. The First Amendment prohibition does not allow one person to commandeer the property of another for his own purposes.

But in terms of their roles in society, there is a critical difference between a university and a private business: Universities have as their central mission the discovery and promotion of knowledge across all different areas of human life. Ideally, a civil debate undertaken with mutual respect could ease tension and advance knowledge. Politics, however, often takes a very different turn.

All too often, support for free speech depends on who is talking and what is being said. Partisanship too frequently shapes our view of just how expansive the First Amendment should be. It has empowered citizens to speak against and undo unjust laws. And it has helped create a vibrant, diverse economy with widespread prosperity. Does this mean there is nothing we can do about speech we find disagreeable or offensive?

Certainly not. In his essay Rewriting the First Amendment , Richard Epstein explains the dangers of a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict spending for political speech.