What is freedom of speech and what are the limits of free speech?

For me, a wise reason to limit specific statements is to protect other human rights. Therefore, it is legal to establish restrictions so that you can receive fair trials, for example, in court reports. You can appeal that infringement of privacy or blasphemy is right (in European law reputation is considered part of privacy and "psychological integrity").

It is legal to do some reviews for national security reasons. Details on how the leader is protected or negotiating with belligerent governments can clearly cause serious damage. It seems reasonable for the government to maintain the authority to review such publications. However, of course, "national security" can also be used to hide various misconducts, so actually it is very few, but such law requires strong defense of public interest.

There are also some arguments to suppress the freedom of speech that I think is illegal. For example, jealousy and apostasy, it is based on the concept of expressions that can not be expressed in God's word purely to restrict speech. In many countries, including Western Europe, there is a criminal slander law prohibiting criticism of civil servants to protect the authority and integrity of the country. In my opinion, this is ridiculous - criticism of government health contributes to democracy and limits civil servants. In this context, there is a review to protect cultural or ethnic identity (Turkey has a law prohibiting "destruction of Turkey"). In my opinion, all these discussions are flawed. By avoiding criticism and closing extremists and opponents, they are actually only ways that force can maintain this power.

There are also paternal arguments: Obscene words and images are often prohibited to protect public morals and to prevent anger. Former president Nicholas Sarkozy defended the recent "Burkinis" ban on "some beaches in France" as "provocation" and defended it. I think that this is also a mistake. Never investigate what a person who does not like speech (or clothing) does. Because it gives veto power only to those who can claim that they feel unwell. In fact, crime is often used as reason for censorship. Students who received misguided guidance with religious people and good will seek racial discrimination and gender discrimination on the university campus with "no platform".

The government also prefers to review words of hatred and words of extremists. However, how disgusting speech will lead to actual violence is unclear and it is very difficult to define "extremism" (as the UK government is currently seeing). In places where ambiguity and uncertainty exist, non - free detention and arrest will begin and general public 's freedom of speech can not be talked out, so it is excluded.

Finally, there is obvious suppression as a reason for suppressing freedom of speech. It is to maintain the order and supremacy of the ruling class. Reviewing and punishing objections is an effective way to maintain and expand power. Until very recently, this was considered completely rational and legitimate by dominant elite and religious leaders!

Regardless of the individual ideology, we support all citizens' right to expression freedom in the United States. However, freedom of speech is not without limitations and restrictions. We should violently exercise the right to freedom of expression and respect the rights of people whose opinions and values ​​are different from ours. The golden rule treats others like others. In Charlottesville, racial discrimination, anti-Semitism, Nazism, ugly voice of white nationalism suppressed the control of this civilization. As people were pushed, beaten, kicked, and injured by thrown objects, the rules of civilization became rulers of mobs. A supremacist claiming to be a white man intentionally drove a car in the crowd, killed a female Heather Heyer, and seriously injured the other 19 people.

The paradox of freedom of speech and tolerance is mainly concerned with the underlying problem that literary liberals often ignore or reject seriously. People often suppress the freedom of others' speech by using the behavior of words. As I detailed in the article, when I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the transgender beliefs and expressions were very embarrassing in our culture so I was concerned as a transgender. Early in the early 1990s when I started participating in the transgender community, we gathered in unknown places and participated in our conference from concern about what would happen if we were discovered publicly I reviewed the people I want to do. Unfortunately, what we experienced at that time was not unique to the transgender people. (Harassment? Refusal? Even worse?