Law and Politics

Start Free Trial

I need arguments for complete freedom of speech and limited freedom of speech (where one is restricted because of racial comments for example) and what is said in the media and on the internet. I have to choose a position on which one I support and must clearly understand what both options mean with examples and detailed explanations.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

There are several arguments for complete freedom. For instance, people have the freedom of worship and can join any religion they want. In addition, complete freedom gives people the freedom of speech. Therefore, expression of opinions is not limited, which enables the freedom of press. For this reason, the government is not supposed to interfere with any information that is conveyed to the public by the media. Furthermore, this type of freedom enables creatives to broadcast information on mainstream media and the internet, which has a positive impact on the economy. Moreover, complete freedom promotes democracy. It also improves knowledge acquisition as people can access a wealth of information on the internet.

On the other hand, limited freedom has many benefits. For example, it prevents the distribution of content that is harmful to children such as pornography. Moreover, limiting freedom can prevent hate speech. Adult content that is accessible to children and hate speech can have violent and unethical results. Therefore, limiting freedom can make a country safe for its citizens. Moreover, it can reduce racism by restricting people from saying offensive things and also ensure that all religions are respected. Even more, national security can be improved by limiting freedom. For instance, the privacy of criminal suspects can be infringed upon for the sake of public safety.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team