http://www.libel.com/free-speech
People frequently want to challenge any limit to free expression, but of course, one person’s sanity is another’s persecution and it is sometimes difficult to determine the limits, if any, of free expression. To say that ‘all expression must be allowed unless, if not curtailed, it will do harm to individuals, groups or society itself’ seems deceivingly straightforward, but it proves a very difficult guideline in practice. Only if harmony in diversity is seen to be of value to the group, state or other social body are there grounds for negotiating competing notional values of harm and distress. But democracy is arguably not harmonious.
Free speech is seen to be a social good in democracy because self-governance entails debate and weighing evidence among different constituencies, with different concerns and points of view. Thus citizens must engage in consideration of all the salient arguments. This right to free expression must be balanced among competing alternative rights and sometimes those competing rights have been difficult to assimilate or fold into a larger good recognized by society’s members as necessary for its health and well-being.
The best way to have a sound censorship is to realize the value of freedom of expression while maintaining a consideration of competing values, intensely important within given concrete contexts.
Reference:
Reinelt, J. (2007). The Limits of Censorship. Theatre Research International, 32(1), 3-15. Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ProQuest.
No comments:
Post a Comment