Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle enable people or communities to express their opinions without fear of reprisal. It is protected by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which broadens its scope to include the freedom to search for, receive, and transmit knowledge and thoughts of all kinds, irrespective of boundaries, verbally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or using any other media of his preference (Post 477). The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) outlines the scope of this right by saying that it is susceptible to particular constraints. These limits preserve other humans’ reputations, national security, public order, health, and societal morality. Freedom of expression is essential for communicating our thoughts, convictions, and beliefs and effectively participating in democracy. The state can nevertheless ‘restrict’ freedom of expression for specific reasons. International and local law allows the state to limit freedom of expression to accomplish broad goals, including national security, public order, public health, and morality. However, examples worldwide show that freedom of expression is subject to unjustified limits. In this article, I argue that the state should be allowed to limit freedom of speech to protect misinformation from spreading, protect the rights of others, and serve the public interest.
The government should be permitted to regulate free expression in order to prevent disinformation from spreading; a review of TikTok comments regarding COVID-19 vaccinations revealed that misconceptions and a lack of knowledge contributed to misunderstandings about vaccine effectiveness. A further investigation using AI and ML technologies supported this finding (Fairholm 121). This demonstrates how simple it is to propagate disinformation and support certain agendas; hence, limiting freedom of speech is imperative. “Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching spread of information,” the systematic review states. Misinformation on social media can have detrimental consequences like an upsurge in incorrect understanding of peer-reviewed knowledge, opinion polarization, increasing anxiety and dread, or reduced access to health care.
Misinformation affects public health concerns such as vaccinations and may have severe consequences for public safety—false information regarding emergency measures during natural catastrophes (Moura et al. 788). For example, inaccurate advice on how to handle dangerous chemicals can put lives in danger. Limiting the dissemination of such disinformation is critical for protecting public health and safety.
The comprehensive research discovered that people face emotional, politically, social, or economic suffering as a result of erroneous and false health-related information on social media during pandemic, health emergencies, and humanitarian disasters (Dutt et al. 151). Nevertheless, not all social media’s consequences were detrimental during the COVID-19 epidemic. Eight reviews found positive results, with some discovering that multiple social media sites resulted in significant improvements in understanding and engagement, greater adherence to medical guidelines, and more beneficial health-related behaviors among users when compared to traditional information dissemination models.
There might be bias in determining what constitutes “misinformation.” Does disinformation include outright lies in comments and articles? Is it disinformation if there are articles that have a little bias toward one viewpoint? Furthermore, with AI and ML technologies still in their early stages of development, Ricardo acknowledges that the likelihood of sampling mistakes is significant. Limiting free speech to address disinformation may restrict public conversation. Individuals may hesitate to share their views or engage in open debate for fear of violating unclear or too broad regulations. Information is essential to people’s everyday lives, and the demand for information is widespread across many areas (Bodrunova). From individual growth to business development, having accessibility to accurate and timely information is essential for making well-informed choices and attaining our objectives. The demand for knowledge has grown even more vital in a fast-paced, constantly evolving world. Individuals and companies must have access to cutting-edge research, trends, and ideas to remain competitive and current.
Giving the state the capacity to control speech to counteract disinformation opens the door to possible misuse by those in positions of power. Governments might use these limitations to silence opposition, sway public opinion, or perpetuate control (Marcondes et al. 397). Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have used censorship under the pretense of combatting disinformation to stifle criticism and control the narrative. One of the most important uses of information is decision-making. In the modern world, choices need to be made rapidly and effectively. Individuals and businesses can benefit from having access to reliable and up-to-date data, allowing them to make educated decisions that improve their lives and enterprises.
There may be a certain amount of sampling bias in determining what constitutes “misinformation,” and there is sufficient evidence to support how misinformation spreads so quickly, particularly through social media, and how it is employed to deceive the general population and induce them to behave in manners that are harmful and unfriendly to retaining accurate knowledge among people in a country (Matczak 331). As a result, it is critical to set limitations to prevent disinformation from spreading and to enact regulations that benefit society. Protections must also be implemented to ensure free expression while combatting disinformation, which is critical. Clear and tightly focused legislation and rigorous oversight systems can help avoid abuses of power while ensuring that speech limits are appropriate and essential (Miok et al. 286). The state may balance combatting disinformation and protecting fundamental rights by establishing standards of openness, accountability, and judicial scrutiny. The most apparent way that misleading and inaccurate information undermines democratic involvement is by encouraging people to think things that are not true, which may be incredibly destructive when distorting policy discussions or weakening democratic institutions. By rendering it challenging to get timely, relevant, and correct information and data, the spread of misinformation can impair the general population’s willingness and ability to participate productively in democratic life and society’s ability to reach consensus.
The state should be allowed to limit freedom of speech to protect the rights of others. They exploited social media to explain hate speech against Muslims in Finland by analyzing notable radical-right Finnish politicians’ posts. This was also observed against the Roma, a minority community in Sweden. It is vital to limit freedom of expression to prevent hate speech from spreading, which can contribute to prejudices and exacerbate the experiences of particular groups, frequently contributing to hate crimes (Wetter 27). Hate speech directed against marginalized groups can fuel discrimination, prejudice, and violence. The state may protect vulnerable groups while promoting a more inclusive and equal society by limiting free speech to prohibit hate speech. This protection is critical for maintaining the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics.
Most legislative provisions are based on ICCPR Articles 19 and 20, although they do not adopt a comprehensive approach. This may have a severe impact on minority and indigenous people, which require the most protection. For instance, Uganda and Rwanda have included sectarianism in their legislation, a poorly defined notion (Hong 1). They equate sectarianism with advocacy; every group of people who begins organizing and pushing for their rights receives accusations of sectarianism. Furthermore, since these criminal statutes were frequently enacted long ago, no one anticipated provocation caused by linguistic minority status, gender, or handicap. Hate speech has real repercussions. These repercussions range from psychic trauma to outright assault. Studies have found a link between the spread of hate speech and a rise in hate crimes against certain groups. Limiting the transmission of hate speech might alleviate these negative consequences and create safer spaces for disadvantaged groups to engage fully in society without fear of discrimination or violence.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the repercussions of widespread disinformation might be lethal for individuals unwilling to get credible information and adopt scientifically founded preventive actions (Oltmann 153). Journalists, as well as numerous additional occupations, including health care workers, human rights advocates, whistleblowers, and peace activists, are facing hate speech and violence as a consequence of their efforts to address or report on the epidemic. Professionals who uncover deception may face hateful and disinformation-fueled assaults in return.
There is a delicate line between expressing one’s thoughts and engaging in hate speech; when is this line crossed? Is it hate speech to reply to disinformation in an emotional manner? Is it hate speech if it begins encouraging crime, and how can it be tracked? Critics believe that outlawing hate speech might limit freedom of expression and pave the door for repression (Berdida et al., 135). There is the worry that too broad or unclear definitions of hate speech may result in the repression of genuine dissent or minority ideas. Furthermore, the subjective character of hate speech makes it difficult to distinguish between hateful and protected speech.
Pettersson (938) contends that hate speech has benefits that are sometimes disregarded. He claims that permitting hate speech gives a more truthful picture of the individual’s condition, allows the opportunity to influence people’s beliefs, and identifies those who should be avoided in specific situations. According to one psychological research study, a greater level of psychopathy is “a significant predictor” for engagement in online hate behavior. However, none of the other seven relevant characteristics evaluated were shown to have statistically significant predictive value.
The state would create a dangerous precedent that might be used to muzzle political dissent or unpopular views if it begins to restrict some types of communication. This slippery slope argument said that allowing the state the authority to limit hate speech may eventually destroy democracy and individual liberty. The issue’s essence should be whether freedom of expression includes hate speech. A person who advocates limiting hate speech is driven more by worries regarding its consequences on others than by their own. Women are slightly more inclined than males to support limiting hate speech due to the increased perceived damage of hate speech.
Overall, states must set clear boundaries and clarify what constitutes hate speech. It is true that expressing ideas is not illegal in many countries when important people’s viewpoints begin to target a certain population. This may contribute to implicit biases and alter the experiences of individuals (Mattsson 92). Furthermore, this might result in disconnected societies as a whole, influencing empirical figures such as crimes against underprivileged groups. Freedom of expression must be weighed against other rights and community interests while it is a fundamental right. The harm caused by hate speech surpasses the possible violation of free speech rights. The state can safeguard vulnerable groups while preserving freedom of expression by defining clear boundaries and standards for hate speech.
States must guarantee that minorities have a fundamental right to equality in written law and society. Local governments, civic groups, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all play essential roles. Police, prosecutors, and courts must be more aware of what comprises racial discrimination and ethnically motivated crimes, and in certain circumstances, reorganizing police units to represent better the multicultural communities they serve may be necessary. It is additionally up to minorities to assimilate themselves into their communities. Other suggestions include regulating hate speech, boosting empowerment via education, and guaranteeing enough housing and access to healthcare.
Hate speech undermines democracy’s core foundations by encouraging division, intolerance, and exclusion. The government may protect democratic ideals and promote social cohesion by prohibiting hate speech (Hight et al. 111). Hate speech victims are increasingly marginalized in society, pushed out of public discourse, and silenced. Hate speech has also been used on purpose to incite people and societies against one another, resulting in violent escalation, hate crime, war, and genocide. Furthermore, supporting courteous debate and a variety of opinions improves democracy by allowing citizens to engage in meaningful and productive dialogue.
The state should be allowed to limit freedom of speech to preserve public order and ensure national security. Events across the globe have shown that particular speech, especially that which incites violence, terrorism, or insurrection, can pose significant threats to the safety and security of a nation and its citizens (Howard 93). For instance, the use of social media platforms to organize riots or terrorist activities demonstrates the potential for speech to transcend mere expression and become a vehicle for endangering public order and national stability. By imposing reasonable limits on speech that threatens public safety, states can preemptively mitigate risks of violence and protect their citizens. Certain types of speech, such as those instigating violence or disturbance, can seriously affect public order and stability. Hate speech that is directed against specific populations or ideas can incite retaliation. This resulted in instability and war. The state can avoid disturbances and protect social peace by limiting speech that threatens public order.
Restrictions must be explicitly defined in legislation in an understandable, accessible, and detailed manner so that persons understand what behaviors are protected. There must be measures to prevent legal misuse, including judicial review. Speech that promotes or incites terrorism, insurgency, or other forms of violence endangers national security. Platforms that encourage the spread of extremist ideology or allow for terrorist recruiting might jeopardize a country’s stability and security (Oltmann 153). Limiting such communication is critical to protecting individuals’ well-being and safety while preventing terrorist threats. Restrictions must be genuinely intended to protect national security and must have a proven effect in that regard. So, limitations that were supposed to defend national security but instead restricted journalistic reporting fail this criterion. Restrictions must be required, which means that limited speech poses a substantial threat to national security, and restricting expression is the least restrictive way to resolve this threat.
The government and its allies say that the marketplace of ideas should be restricted during a crisis. Some argue that “subordinate” principles, such as free expression, cannot be preserved until national security is assured. Some say that every American’s patriotic responsibility is to support the troops, war effort, and commander-in-chief during wartime. Criticism of the war effort undermines the morale of our men, while a divided society empowers the adversary. To prevent giving the adversary an edge, official information regarding the fight might require to be kept secret; the government should have as much freedom as possible while monitoring known adversaries and prospective sympathizers.
What counts as terrorism or inciting acts of terrorism? Putting limits on speech for the sake of national security could lead to the suppression of dissenting voices and be used as a pretext for government overreach. Critics may point out that such measures can be exploited to stifle political opposition, suppress protests, and erode civil liberties while protecting national security. Critics say that providing the state the capacity to prohibit speech for public order and national security risks government overreach and misuse of power (Sage et al. 1443). There is a risk that authorities may use these restrictions to repress political dissent, target minority groups, or prohibit lawful forms of protest under the pretense of maintaining public order. Citizens in the democratic society evaluate the legitimacy of leaders’ grounds for war. Some may question the effectiveness and ethicality of our military actions during the conflict. Individuals should be allowed to have the accessibility to official information about the causes and advancement of wars to make informed judgments about whether to support them. Speech restrictions in the name of public order and national security can violate fundamental civil freedoms such as free expression and assembly. Those who are silenced, even for legitimate reasons, face social and political disgrace. Hate speech rules always do more than simply prohibiting somebody from using nasty or derogatory statements to make a political point in a specific setting. Such measures may foster an environment of fear and surveillance to the public which later results in to the undermining the democratic participation and civil society involvement. The targets of hate speech frequently lack political power, so this reasoning does not imply that individuals should oppose limitation in all circumstances. However, it lends credence to the notion that the opposing arguments on each side of the discussion are actually very similar.
The government should balance between protecting national security and preserving individual freedoms. Protecting the ideal of free expression and striking a reasonable balance with other valid concerns, like national security, has always been a challenging problem for democratic countries. This balance can be achieved through transparent legal processes and the clear definitions of what constitutes incitement to violence or terrorism. Judicial oversight is also to ensure that any limits on speech are narrowly tailored to serve legitimate security interests without infringing upon the fundamental right to free expression. It is feasible to balance ensuring national security and preserving individual liberties while fears about government overreach are legitimate. The state can guarantee that speech restrictions are reasonable and subject to court scrutiny (Enarsson et al. 1). Regulating speech that directly threatens public order or national security is critical for protecting the common good and all individuals. States must specify in legislation the particular and limited categories of information that are prohibited; they cannot impose a blanket limitation on access to all information related to national security. The public’s interest in understanding the information should be a significant factor in deciding the legality of its limitation; hence, legislation should include sections that determine the value of public interest. The refusal of permission to view material on national security considerations must be evaluated by an impartial judicial authority that can access the information in question. Information that is currently in the public domain cannot be limited.
The state should be allowed to limit freedom of speech to protect misinformation from spreading, protect the rights of others, and serve the public interest. Censorship and free expression are two sides of the same coin and have been a source of contention for many years. The arguments provided in this study emphasize the nuances required in balancing free expression with conflicting social objectives. The proliferation of disinformation in the digital age highlights the need for steps to fight its negative impact on public health, safety, and social cohesion. In many nations, the freedom of free expression is considered a valuable entitlement. Traditionally, the repression of free expression has slowed human progress in the sciences and arts. Free speech is essential to ideas since it is required for effective self-government and societal growth. There were some limits on free expression and the press. Furthermore, threats to public order and national security must be addressed, and speech restrictions that pose serious hazards to societal safety and stability may be justified. However, speech control must be approached with prudence with any limits being precisely limited, reasonable and subject to clear legal processes and judicial monitoring. An abuser can be penalized for misusing such a right, which is a term derived straight from state constitutions. The severity of abuse will be considered if it is related to the label of a private individual, often referred to as treason, and seldom to other issues. The difficulty is to strike a fine balance between preserving free expression as a cornerstone of democracy and addressing the real-world consequences that might result from the misuse or abuse of that freedom. States may negotiate this challenging terrain and create a more fair and safe society for everyone by taking a pragmatic approach that examines larger social ramifications while also respecting the ideals of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Berdida, Daniel Joseph E., et al. “Filipinos’ COVID‐19 Vaccine Hesitancy Comments in TikTok Videos: A Manifest Content Analysis.” Public Health Nursing (Boston, Mass.), vol. 40, no. 1, 2023, pp. 135–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.13143.
Bodrunova, Svetlana S. Internet Science: 5th International Conference, INSCI 2018, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 24-26, 2018, Proceedings. 1st Edition 2018, vol. 11193, Springer Nature, 2018.
Dutt, Ritam, et al. “‘ Senator, We Sell Ads’: Analysis of the 2016 Russian Facebook Ads Campaign.” Advances in Data Science, Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 151–68.
Enarsson, Therese, and Simon Lindgren. “Free Speech or Hate Speech? A Legal Analysis of the Discourse About Roma on Twitter.” Information & Communications Technology Law, vol. 28, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2018.1494415.
Fairholm, Gilbert W. “Hate.” Overcoming Workplace Pathologies, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 121–34.
Hight, Marc, and Ulrich Norbisrath. “The Social Nature of Technology Fixes.” Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, vol. 70, no. 2, 2021, pp. 111–21, https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.202L2.03.
Hong, Mathias. “Regulating Hate Speech and Disinformation Online While Protecting Freedom of Speech as an Equal and Positive Right – Comparing Germany, Europe and the United States.” Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, no. 1, 25 June 2022, pp. 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2083679.
Howard, Jeffrey W. “Free Speech and Hate Speech.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22, no. 1, 2019, pp. 93–109, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343.
Marcondes, Francisco S., et al. “A Profile on Twitter Shadowban: An AI Ethics Position Paper on Free- Speech.” Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning – IDEAL 2021, Springer International Publishing, pp. 397–405.
Matczak, Marcin. “Why Legal Rules Are Not Speech Acts and What Follows from That?” Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 331–39.
Mattsson, Christer. “Lost in Translation – A Case Study of a Public Debate on Freedom of Expression and a Neo-Nazi Rally.” Social Identities, vol. 26, no. 1, 2020, pp. 92–108, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2019.1679620.
Miok, Kristian, et al. “Prediction Uncertainty Estimation for Hate Speech Classification.” Statistical Language and Speech Processing, Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 286–98.
Moura, Ricardo, et al. “Automated Fake News Detection Using Computational Forensic Linguistics.” Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Springer International Publishing, September 2021, pp. 788– 800.
Oltmann, Shannon M. “Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives.” The Library Quarterly (Chicago), vol. 86, no. 2, 2016, pp. 153–71, https://doi.org/10.1086/685402.
Pettersson, Katarina. “‘Freedom of Speech Requires Actions’: Exploring the Discourse of Politicians Convicted of Hate‐speech Against Muslims.” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 49, no. 5, 2019, pp. 938–52, https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2577.
Post, Robert. “PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AND FREE SPEECH.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 97, no. 3, 2011, pp. 477–89.
Sage, William M., and Y. Tony Yang. “Reducing ‘COVID-19 Misinformation’ While Preserving Free Speech.” JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 327, no. 15, 2022, pp. 1443–44, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.4231.
Wetter, Anne-Mareike. “The Prophet and the King: Is There Such a Thing as Free Prophetic Speech?” Prophecy and Prophets in Stories, vol. 65, BRILL, 2015, pp. 27–44.