The concept of freedom of speech has been problematic for a long time now. There have been numerous debates among the people regarding this issue. There are people who believe that the freedom of speech should be restricted to some extent while others think that this is not appropriate. The constitution has given everyone the right to express themselves and offer their opinions on varied issues. This should be done without any form of interference. But to what extent is this freedom deemed feasible?

It is appropriate for the government to impede freedom of speech on some occasions due to a variety of reasons. To begin with, “speech acts can be closely related to the execution of physical acts. This is to mean that most people tend to react in undesirable ways based on what they hear, read and watch” (Rudanko 116). Actions such as hate speech are likely to amount to war crimes in the long-run. This is the same case with political polemic which would result to insurrection where people rebel based on the information that they have been fed. The shootings that have been experienced in the United States in the past might be as a result of inflammatory language that is being used in the society.

Freedom of speech can also be retrenched during periods of war. It is the culpability of the government to protect the citizens from both internal and foreign enemies (Rudanko 47). Exercising a restriction on freedom of speech during such periods ensures that aspects of spying and propaganda have been prevented. These two aspects are likely to undermine national interest. Spies might pass the information that is being disseminated to the enemies, and this might make the country vulnerable. During wars, people also tend to give out information that is not quite true. There are some who are driven by the prospect of gaining in such a situation. The propaganda involved might lead to increased panic and unrest, which is not a favorable attribute during a war (Milo 83).

The government also needs to protect minors in the country. This protection would come in a way of ensuring that they are not exposed to offensive, obscene or materials that are potentially damaging. The government can do this by censoring content that is not appropriate to the minority. When minors are exposed to things like pornography, they are likely to indulge in unsafe sexual practices. This is because they are aware of its existence, but are not aware of the appropriate measures that should be upheld in order to remain safe (Milo 74). There are some forms of curiosity that come with being exposed to things that people are not used to.

In conclusion, everyone is entitled to the freedom of speech by the constitution of the country. However, the way that this freedom is used sometimes might be questionable. There are people who go to the extreme on this issue. To others, it is an opportunity to gain at the expense of others. Restricting freedom of speech might be seen as a way of diminishing the aspect of democracy. But this is not always true. There are times when the restrictions would be in the best interest of the country.  This is because it prevents the distribution of undesired information at certain periods.

Works cited

Milo, Dario. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media. Defamation and Freedom of       Speech (2008): 43-95. Web.

Rudanko, Juhani. Discourses of Freedom of Speech. (2012): n. pag. Web.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?