It’s Time to Limit Restrict Hate Speech

Freedom of speech has become a pillar of democratic integration when it limits disliked speech. Without freedom of speech, we will not challenge ideas, the government will not be restricted and citizens can not be free. John Stuart Miller once said, "There is no reason for humans to silence that person if all men lose one person's opinion and only one person has the opposite opinion. I will protect those who are silent. "(Roleff, 21).

An excellent Guardian article by Monday Julia Carrie Wong is investigating the impact of the growing liberal / leftistic desire for "Hate speech". It is forbidden to spread what they call "disgusting ideas" with their platform. As Wong correctly pointed out, "Many Americans are increasingly fond of restrictions on European style dislikes." Therefore, it is worth considering how these "European regulations" are actually functioning and how they will work against anyone.

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 voluntary (courtesy) restrictions but 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.

Under the International Human Rights Act, it is clearly stipulated that expressions including aversive expressions can not be based solely on aggressive or insulting content. But the government has to restrict speech, because restrictions are the only way to prevent serious harm. This kind of speech can be understood as the form of the most serious "intolerance" or "hatred" that is claiming discriminatory hatred, aiming at violence and discrimination, and may instigate it. Direct threats limiting discriminatory violence may also be limited