Free Speech Should Not be Restricted

Freedom of speech, I have an idea! Everyone can speak freely about problems and ideas. Of course, some people will be better than others, but the result will put together everyone's best ideas. Everyone except you. We decide that the meaning of this country is not that important even if you say anything. We encourage you to leave all your thoughts to yourself. By making me angry, I mean to make someone unhappy. In general, no one really likes what you are saying. Therefore, you and you were decided to be just silent.

There are two arguments to support freedom of speech. However, many people believe that freedom of speech should be restricted or limited in some cases. I am not talking about spontaneous (courtesy) restrictions, but I am speaking about involuntary restrictions. These limits include limitations on hatred, attack, confidentiality, utility, and authority. Some remarks may harm certain groups, especially the mainstream culture and those supported by the government. This aggressive remark may be told in good faith to reach the truth. It may not be the case. In either case, attacking this group is regarded as a bigger mistake than restricting freedom of speech. For example, a frank and open-cut comparison of sexual relations with Muhammad's 9-year-old girl and pedophile sexual relations is uncomfortable for many Muslims.

Freedom of speech is one of the symbols of a democratic society. It should be limited to extreme and persuasive circumstances. It is the censorship and the decline of open discussion to criminalize aggressive and aggressive views. This is also counterproductive. It makes it possible for people martyrs to have a delusional view and to move from real solutions that hate speech: education and rational discussion. The disliked speech should not be a conviction, but a protest and an objection. Hate speech is a general expression of discrimination against vulnerable groups (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc), and not being a criminal act is counterproductive. A society exempt from discriminatory remarks is a society that tolerates discrimination and suffers violence. Since the hatred's speech is a precursor to violence, the rhetoric of the hatred anti-abortion of the United States for decades has brought assassinations of providers.

After careful consideration of the question "Whether to restrict freedom of speech", I think it should be restrictive and effective. I think the limit is correct, but I think that the limit is wrong. Freedom of speech should be expressed as much as possible, but freedom of speech may infringe the rights of others. The best way to solve this problem is to do the work that the court did to adapt to excessive freedom. In order to compensate for the freedom of dissolution, people's rights are adjusted and adjusted without being excluded. First freedom of freedom is the most important, so it's first and foremost. The founder of the Constitution admitted changes. This is not to protect the majority but to protect a few people. Speaking wisely, restricting freedom of speech does not slow freedom, but makes speech clearer