Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?
Limitless free speech allows the spread of false and dangerous information.
Perpetuation of climate change denial could have dire consequences.
Limitless free speech allows people uneducated on a subject to form rushed, wrong and misleading arguments about that subject.
Limitless free speech in this form could lead to individuals and society as a whole to be misled about important issues.
It also allows the spread of factual and true information to counter it. Free speech does not take sides.
By having people spread such untrue information (like creationism or negationism, for example), they ridicule themselves when faced by specialists or people that demonstrate they are wrong and therefore stop the spreading of this kind of ideology.
Limiting free speech can also ensure correct information is not spread or suppressed.
Even if speech could be regulated through goverment by a majority opinion of its residents (and not an interested minority, as it often happens), it still would not be legitimate as the majority opinion does not automaticaly constitute as truth.
"Dangerous" as defined by the government will not fit everyone's definition. It will likely be defined to fit their political agenda.
The path to finding truth often involves being wrong. While it is immoral to intentionally spread mistruth, the difficulty lies in determining what truth is. We all might be wrong, and without the ability to speak, we may never determine what is actually truth.
Any type of speech at all may allow the spread of misleading or dangerous information. Speech cannot be, itself, untrue or true. That determination relies on the individual receiving it and producing it. Freedom is thus not the mechanism by which misinformation is spread.