Katsuras 1 Alexia Katsuras Shunzi Redfern Professor Nigmendra Narain POLISCI 1020E 200 28 February 2025 The Freedom of Open Dialogue in Societies Should the state put limits on free speech? This question ignites a lot of debate between people's rights to speak freely and the negative effects that come with unrestricted speech. In this essay, I argue that the state should not put limits on free speech. Free speech is necessary for an open, well-functioning democracy that can progress socially and politically, allowing individuals to receive and exchange uncensored information, and be able to seek justice against sexual violence. This essay will explore the importance of unrestricted speech by examining, using examples from different countries, why free speech is more than just a human right, and how it is a meaningful contribution to democracy and its process, being able to freely share ideas, thoughts, and experiences that contribute to society without fear of censorship and how free speech is used to challenge authoritative figures, hold people accountable and help individuals regain empowerment through both the media and activism like movements such as #MeToo and #LetHerSpeak. Free speech is not only a basic human right but also a shared cultural value (Nossel 120). It is through freedom that individuals can openly share their perspectives and beliefs, advocate for their ideas and thoughts, and engage with others through conversation, protests, movements, media, and more, fostering a well-functioning and inclusive democracy. Free Katsuras 2 speech contributes to significant democratic events, like elections. Democracy demands more than simply just voting from its citizens; casting a ballot involves voters receiving valuable information, forming personal beliefs, and understanding the concerns of the public (Nossel 120). Citizens must have access to viewpoints of different information, especially when it comes to key issues and shaping directions of governance. Without the ability to freely exchange and access information, casting a vote is just an empty act, rather than a meaningful civic contribution (Nossel 120). This example of voting highlights not just informed decision-making, but the importance of participation in society, as every vote is a voice. Moreover, Nossel states, “Free speech makes it possible to sound the alarm if a society is eroding other democratic values or lurching toward authoritarianism” (123). This illustrates that free speech allows individuals to inform others if democracy weakens, or becomes oppressive, reinforcing the idea that this right is fundamental for maintaining a healthy democracy. Limiting free speech would make significant discussions and debates with others who have similar, unique, or opposing views impossible, hindering social cohesion and political progression in societies. However, while free speech is essential for a well-functioning democracy, the absence of limitation can result in negative forms of speech, particularly hateful speech, targeting marginalized groups. Hate speech frequently refers to a certain expression of hatred toward certain characteristics of individuals, or groups of people, in specific contexts (Howard 95). Thus, in an unrestricted society, individuals will use their freedom to promote racism, discrimination and derogatory or violent ideologies against targeted groups, including gender, sexuality, race, etc., whether it is through the media, internet, or in-person interactions. To add, the internet is the fastest growing and most powerful communication medium for hate groups, Katsuras 3 playing a significant role in the spread of white supremacist ideologies, while also serving as a hub for the organization of hate actions against marginalized groups (Demaske 144). For example, Titley stated, “In 2015 the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reported that Laura Huhtasaari, an MP for the right-wing nationalist True Finns Party, was a member of a closed Facebook group ‘The racist background of rapists that hide in bushes’” (2). The group's content was both racist and anti-Muslim. It contained photos of men who were of North African and Somalian descent, implying that immigration was the cause for increased rapes in Finland and other European countries in the north. This perpetuated stereotypes about immigrants, specifically those who are Black and Muslim. The group also contained anti-Black comments and posts (Titley 2). The spread of hate speech gains momentum and begins to create a society where hostility and resentment are normalized, preventing bridges, and weakening social stability, cooperation, respect, and harmonious coexistence between diverse people of different communities. New Zealand, for instance, “bans speech with “threatening, abusive, or insulting...words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the grounds of the color, race, or ethnic or national... origins of that group of persons” (qtd. in Demaske 95). These examples demonstrate that imposed limits are necessary for increased respect, safety, and inclusivity in order to keep an equitable society, and to ensure that speech is not weaponized against marginalized groups. To address the growing concern of hate speech, governments have implemented strict approaches both on and off-line in ensuring proper mitigation of the issue, such as entrenched laws, codes, regulations, and legal actions that protect society from hateful remarks. France has made regulations for social media networks, making it mandatory that platforms must be Katsuras 4 transparent about online content removal processes and account oversight to ensure adequate measures, as companies are penalized for systemic violations (Hochmann 144). This monitors what is being posted online, and by who. Failure to comply will result in heavy penalties from the French media regulatory authority (Hochmann 144). This systemic approach ensures that all media platforms intervene when inappropriate content, such as hate speech, is shared to create a safe and inclusive environment for its users. Similarly, in Canada, encouraging genocide and inciting hate against a specific group of people in public is an offence under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code (CC) (Tunnicliffe 67). France also has laws against hate speech under their own Criminal Code, and under the First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech is criminalized if it specifically threatens violence or consists of specific threats against a particular person, or group of people (Vergani et al. 30). Therefore, there is no need for limits on free speech as these laws and regulations are designed to preserve the right to individual free speech while protecting people from the damaging impacts of hateful speech. Secondly, free speech is a key component for the uncensored exchange of information. It keeps individuals connected with up-to-date news and prominent issues in the world. Media is an innovative tool that has altered the way in which we communicate with others, and it allows for lighting speed interactions as well as shared content and material worldwide (Bollinger and Stone 23), whether it is revealing current news and events, sharing entertainment and stories, or holding accountable those in spheres of power (Nossel 129). Apps like Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and more have completely changed the way we interact and receive information. Uncensored information means individuals are free to expose wrongdoing in government and society while lessening retaliation risk (Nossel 123). Especially Katsuras 5 those who are reporters and journalists (Nossel 123). They can share insight without fear of censorship, which can include public health emergencies, natural disasters or holding authoritative figures accountable for corruption or unprofessional behaviour. The uncensored exchange of information lets society know the suppressed truth about real-time events when it may not be so blatantly obvious. Individuals also have the freedom to publicly share lived experiences and struggles with thousands of others without being silenced (Nossel 122). Moreover, the robust protection for press freedom lets journalists and the media expose political corruption or scandals like the #MeToo movement, which utilized social media to amplify the voices of victims and expose perpetrators, ensuring honesty within society’s democracy (Nossel 122). It is clear that transparent information is crucial for the public's wellbeing. Imposed limits on free speech would keep information censored, suppressing society and hiding individuals away from the truth, leaving people lost and vulnerable. Despite the uncensored exchange of information in society and through the media being a key component for keeping communities informed about current events and issues, it has its drawbacks. Without imposed limits, information spreads like wildfire, especially through the media, faster than it can be verified, leading to the rapid increase of misinformation and disinformation. Examples of this include major incidents like the Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, large-scale protests for racial justice, the proliferation of conspiracy theories along with disinformation concerning the 2020 US presidential election and its outcome, as well as the COVID-19 global pandemic (Di Domenico et al. 1700-1701). During the worldwide pandemic, misinformation caused widespread rejection and skepticism over COVID-19 public health measures as conspiracies circulated about the effectiveness of vaccines, Katsuras 6 and whether they are harming our immune systems (Bollinger and Stone 23). This misinformation fuels a lot of confusion, and distrust and even defames people and company names. Following, fake news that targets companies who are private can result in serious consequences that affect brand trust (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700), reputation (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700) and product boycotts (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700). In 2017, the sportswear company New Balance, faced both reputational damages and negative reactions from their consumers ahead of false allegations of offering “a wholesale endorsement of the Trump revolution” (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1700). “Similarly, in 2016 untrue news about parasites found in Coca‐Cola bottles distributed across the US, rapidly spread through social media and forced the company to issue an official response to the hoax to protect the brand reputation” (Di Domenico et al. 1701). These companies unfortunately received backlash for claims that failed to be true, and received damage to their brand’s images, all due to the spread of false information. Source credibility and ratings also play a factor in heavily affecting message believability and user responses, with influence from the individuals sharing this false information, as it may be someone you know or look up to who is sharing the content which influences user behaviours and beliefs (qtd. in Di Domenico et al. 1701). Imposed limits and regulations will decrease the amount of misinformation that is manipulating public perception and tearing down reputations, leaving less room for harm toward citizens, companies, and states. Although the spread of misinformation and disinformation is a prominent issue in our digital age, it can be approached and prevented by measures without the need for imposed limits on people's freedom of speech. Social media efforts such as fact-checking and flagging, Katsuras 7 the reporting of false or offensive content, are responsible for reviewing what is posted on the media, especially if the content violates the platform's terms, conditions, and regulations. Twitter has demonstrated this tactic by attaching warning and fact‐check labels to posts by Donald Trump on US election results, regarding election fraud claims in 2020 (Di Domenico et al. 7101-1702). Flagging media content increases credibility and accuracy on posts consisting of fake news that have failed to be flagged while discouraging users from continuing to share the false content (Di Domenico et al. 1702). Going back to the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracies and false information were floating all around the internet. A fact-check and flagging experiment was done to see if Twitter's precautions had an impact on participants. 299 participants reacted to tweets about conspiracies of the total death count caused by COVID-19 in the U.S (Lanius et al. 4). They first looked at a tweet matching their initial thought on the number of deaths, and then looked at the same tweet, except this time it had an automated tag, indicating the information is coming from an automated system, not a real person (Lanius et al. 2). Lastly, they looked at the same tweet again, with a flag warning, which tells users that the tweet contains misinformation (Lanius et al. 2). The findings imply that these precautions are effective in reducing participants' tendencies to engage with tweets consisting of false or disinformation, and influences participants' attitudes towards misinformation (Lanius et al. 2). These measures help educate social media users and let them make informed decisions on if the information they have obtained is true or not while knowing it contains false information or is from an automated source. While also mitigating the spread of fake news as flagging and fact-checking successfully mitigate shares of false content, without the need for state-imposed laws. Katsuras 8 Finally, free speech is crucial in upholding many rights, such as seeking justice against sexual violence. “The #MeToo movement has reached 85 nations worldwide” (StubbsRichardson et al. 1330). #MeToo began in 2006 to support victims of sexual abuse, assault, and violence in speaking up about their subjective experiences (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). The nonprofit became a global movement, taking over social media with reports in late 2017, through 2018 (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Popular U.S male figures were named and deplatformed by the movement, including famous film producer Harvey Weinstein, former U.S gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar, politician Roy Moore, actor Kevin Spacey, and more (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Many of these men lost, left their jobs, were put on leave, suspended or under investigation (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1331). Sexual violence is an experience that typically silences its victims (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski, 657). Despite state censorship in places like China, Chinese women used alternative media platforms, like WeChat, to contribute to the movement and shed light on sexual violence in the country (Stubbs-Richardson et al. 1332). Without limitations on free speech, individuals can have a voice through movements like #MeToo, holding people accountable and telling personal stories to seek justice and reclaim power back (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 654). A study was done to investigate how participation in anti-sexual assault activism affects sexual violence survivors. Participants felt encouraged to talk about their experiences and confront and hold perpetrators accountable (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 660). #LetHerSpeak is another example of a social movement in Tasmania, challenging the limited rights of survivors of gender-based violence, to speak about their cases to the media (Alcalde and Villa 22). Females are not the only people who experience sexual violence: men can also be victims. For example, Terry Crews, a famous Katsuras 9 Black male actor, announced on Twitter that he was a victim of sexual assault at the hands of a male Hollywood executive (Curry 288). With limitations on free speech, it would be impossible for people to speak out. Free speech allows all kinds of individuals to speak freely and seek justice against issues like sexual violence. However, the absence of limitations on free speech regarding sexual violence can result in rape culture; “A hotly contested term and idea, which refers basically to “a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women,” leading to the acceptance of rape as a normal part of life” (Durham 3). The prevalence of rape culture has highly increased in the #MeToo movement (Durham 3). The widespread adoption of rape myths, which are false beliefs about rape and its victims, creates a hostile setting, deterring survivors from sharing their experiences as they fear they will not be believed (qtd. in Kettrey et al. 1617). Due to this, sexual violence in the U.S. remains an unreported crime (Kettrey et al. 1617). The 2022 National Crime Victimization Survey found that only 21.4% of sexual assaults were reported, making it the lowest reporting rate of any examined crime (qtd. in Kettrey et al. 1617). Furthermore, for decades, media corporations like Fox News, The Weinstein Company, and Miramax have consistently concealed sexual violence in their workplaces (Durham 3). These accounts often normalize violence against women, and vulnerable groups as well as participate in victim-blaming, holding survivors accountable for the violence and placing emphasis on the credibility of the victim's character, which is especially seen in the film, television, and Hollywood industry (Durham 89). This displays that limitation is necessary to prevent such harmful ideas, like rape culture, from continuously thriving and making survivors seem like the real perpetrators. Katsuras 10 Although, limitations on the topic of free speech, related to rape culture, may hinder activism by silencing survivors even more. Victims of sexual violence recognize that they are not alone, and activism gives them a sense of unity that can enable them to break their silence collectively (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 660-661). A study was done to explore the role activism, such as the #MeToo movement, plays in sexual violence survivors’ healing process. Survivors transitioned from emotions of pain and shame to ones of empowerment and freedom (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 658). Through advocacy, participants learned that sexual violence is a common occurrence rather than an isolated incident (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 658). Several participants felt encouraged to discuss their personal experiences in a public attempt to help influence social change. For example, Swanson and Syzmanski stated, “Helen discussed feeling more comfortable sharing her experience as a survivor after being involved in activist work Survivors talked about how, as activists, they had increased motivation and opportunity in talking about their experience and publicly advocating for change” (658). Many individuals gained a better comprehension of the quality of their own skills and drive to pursue justice, which increased their self-esteem, and confidence and encouraged others to do the same (Strauss Swanson and Szymanski 658). Thus, free speech without any kind of limitation is crucial for making sure survivors continue to share their stories, refute false narratives and advocate for social change. Even when speech restrictions are imposed to combat rape culture, they may unintentionally silence activist who use their voice to demand justice and healing. Overall, this essay has explained the importance of not putting limits on free speech as free speech is needed for a well-rounded democracy, the transparent exchange of information Katsuras 11 between individuals, especially across media platforms, and helping individuals seek justice against issues like sexual violence while gaining empowerment. State restrictions on free speech are not the answer, despite legitimate worries about issues including hate speech, misinformation and disinformation, and rape culture. Rather than limiting fundamental freedoms, alternative approaches like entrenched legal frameworks, codes, and laws, social media restrictions including flagging and fact-checking and collective activism solve concerns. Free speech guarantees that society stays informed and that underrepresented views are heard. It keeps society moving forward in a positive light. Therefore, the state should not put limits on free speech, as our societies and democracies should be able to freely create atmospheres that value open discussion, honesty, accountability, empowerment, and inclusivity. Katsuras 12 Works Cited Alcalde, M. Cristina, and Paula-Irene Villa. #Metoo and beyond: Perspectives on a Global Movement. University Press of Kentucky, 2022. Bollinger, Lee C., and Geoffrey R. Stone. Social Media, Freedom of Speech and the Future of Our Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2022. Curry, Tommy J. “Expendables for whom: Terry Crews and the erasure of black male victims of sexual assault and rape.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 42, no. 3, 3 July 2019, pp. 287–307, https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1641874. Demaske, Chris. Free Speech and Hate Speech in the United States: The Limits of Toleration. Routledge, 2021. Di Domenico, Giandomenico, et al. “Free but fake speech: When giving primacy to the source decreases misinformation sharing on social media.” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 38, no. 10, 13 Mar. 2021, pp. 1700–1711, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21479. Durham, Meenakshi Gigi. Metoo: The Impact of Rape Culture in the Media. Polity Press, 2021. Hochmann, Thomas. “Hate speech online: The government as regulator and as speaker.” Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2022, pp. 139–158, https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2085014. Howard, Jeffrey W. “Free speech and hate speech.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22, no. 1, 11 May 2019, pp. 93–109, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343. Katsuras 13 Kettrey, Heather Hensman, et al. “‘A woman, with no evidence, can send any man to jail whenever she wants’: Men’s Rights Activists’ digital narratives of a culture of false rape allegations.” Sex Roles, vol. 90, no. 11, 10 Oct. 2024, pp. 1616–1632, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01526-6. Lanius, Candice, et al. “Use of BOT and content flags to limit the spread of misinformation among social networks: A behavior and attitude survey.” Social Network Analysis and Mining, vol. 11, no. 1, 12 Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00739-x. Nossel, Suzanne. “The fate of American democracy depends on free speech.” Daedalus, vol. 153, no. 3, 2024, pp. 119–134, https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02093. Strauss Swanson, Charlotte, and Dawn M. Szymanski. “From pain to power: An exploration of activism, the #Metoo movement, and healing from sexual assault trauma.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 67, no. 6, Nov. 2020, pp. 653–668, https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000429. Stubbs-Richardson, Megan, et al. “It’s a global #MeToo: A cross-national comparison of social change associated with the movement.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 24, no. 6, 4 July 2023, pp. 1330–1349, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2023.2231654. Titley, Gavan. Racism and Media. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019. Tunnicliffe, Jennifer. “‘to attack the rights of one man is to attack the rights of everyone’: Conservative rights talk and Canada’s first hate speech laws.” American Review of Katsuras 14 Canadian Studies, vol. 54, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2024, pp. 50–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2024.2329028. Vergani, Matteo, et al. “Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews, vol. 20, no. 2, 28 Apr. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1397.
0
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )