We Should Restrict Freedom of Speech

Governments should be distrusted. (a) Many political theorists argue that checks and balances need to be put in place in order to prevent Governmental abuse. The right to freedom of speech is too important to leave in the hands of Government. (b) An independent judiciary, or politically-independent body for assessing such circumstances is the only place that can effectively guarantee.

‘After all, the practical reason why when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest'[[CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, H D Thoreau]] Tyranny of the majority is as good a reason as any to prevent Government from being involved in censorship – the majority of the population may be anti-homosexuality, or anti-immigrant, or indeed pro-genetically modified foods. In a healthy democracy it is vital that smaller groups be heard, and there is no way to guarantee these voices if the Government can restrict free speech.

Society is self-regulating. (a) The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one – people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do. (b) Exposing pornography, hate speech and political polemic (extreme nationalism etc.) to society increase the likelihood that it will be discredited and defeated, rather than strengthened through persecution. This is Milton’s argument from ‘Areopagitica’ (1644) – truth will combat error.

The government may well wish to surpress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Although some views that may be expressed might be contrary to religious teaching, we must defend the rights of the non-religious within any society too.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that – arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state acts in loco parentis and must act as a conservative parent at that.