Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?
Slippery Slope arguments are typically regarded as a logical
. Minor limitations on freedom of speech (which is the norm in most countries) have not and are not guaranteed to lead to tyranny.
The fact that free speech is not absolute in the
, as hate speech is illegal, has not resulted in tyranny existing.
Most democratic countries, most notably the US, have become less tyrannical and expanded civil rights despite limitations on speech.
These types of arguments are fallacious. A slippery slope arguments assumes that one action will lead to the most extreme conclusion without demonstrating how to get from the action to the conclusion.
The potential for such abuse to take place makes the policy bad in principle.
If you limit speech in one case your Opposition can use that as precedent to limit speech in other ways that you may not agree with.
Slippery slope arguments do not assume the outcome is guaranteed, but rather a possible outcome. Possible outcomes, even if with small probability, with serious impact are valid to consider.