Freedom of Speech
Is freedom of speech necessary in a free society?
In former times, freedom of speech was strictly constricted for the benefit of counties’ development. Nonetheless, there are those who contend that freedom of speech is the unique means for improving a free society. In this sense, whether freedom of speech is consistently detrimental to countries’ development is yet to be ascertained.
From one stance, politicians take advantage of freedom of speech to slander their opponents in the legislative council which undermines the efficiency of their meetings. To illustrate, a member of the council rejects an agenda proposed based on a rumour that the member proposing the agenda is having beneficial connections with a corporation, irrespective of the positive outcome it may be brought. Evidently, freedom of speech becomes a hindrance of countries’ development.
From another stance, freedom of speech incites the general public to fight for their right. In former times, employees worked overtime without compensation, where they were afraid of being dismissed if they requested extra compensation. Time and again, it has become an implicit rule to work overtime without compensation. Nevertheless, freedom of speech provides them with the right to challenge inequality. Hence, it raises the living standard of the general public and creates a harmonious society.
By and large, it is axiomatic that allowing freedom of speech has its own positive and negative implications. To my way of thinking, it is imperative for a free society to allow freedom of speech as depriving people from expressing their outlook would only provoke a revolution rather than stabilizing a country.