Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?
When governments limit free speech they often do so for their own political interests, rather than the common good.
Hungary has been cracking down on freedom of speech to stop
from being voiced.
Laws which restrict speech often use far more ambiguous grounds than is found typically in law. As a result, governments are able to stretch the meaning of laws to their own ends.
Recently, Saudi Arabia has been
for limiting the free speech of journalists who were critical of the regime.
It becomes easy for governments to control public narrative through limiting speech, leading to societies becoming vulnerable to private interests.
Certain governments abusing a policy is not a reason for why that policy is not good in principal.
In representative democracies the government, theoretically, reflects the will of the people. Therefore a government that limits speech does so for the common good, while also acting in their own political interest - they are not binary options.
This is speculative and unproven. The sedition act of 1798 was allowed to expire in 1801, and the sedition act of 1918 was repealed in 1920. If all governments restricted speech for political purposes, these restrictions would still exist.