The Debate on Limitations of Freedom of Expression

Human Rights 2
‘Human rights’ is a term which is used very lightly and yet it holds a lot of significance in
it. It denotes the very basic rights which any human being is provided with, in order to respect
and dignify the beings. There are a range of human rights, which the individuals have been
provided with, and one of such is the freedom of expression (Donnelly & Whelan, 2017). In
United Kingdom (UK), the Human Rights Act, 1998, through its Article 10, provides the
freedom of expression as a right of every person. This right is in terms of holding opinions,
imparting and receiving ideas and information without being interfered. However, this article
also provides that the freedom of expression exists only when the same is carried on in a
responsible manner, where certain duties are fulfilled (UK Legislation, 2018). This Article is
fundamental to the democracy of the nation (Liberty, 2018). This right is also the one which is
often debated upon on the issue of the right to expression being too much, or whether there was a
need to put limitations on this right. The proponents of freedom of expression state that it is their
right, whilst the opponents provide that freedom of expression is often misused and therefore
requires limitations to be put on it. Each point in favour of freedom of expression gets a counter
point against it, and the vice versa is also true (Westin & Ruebhausen, 2015). This discussion is
focused on the answering if limitations need to be put on this right, and where the same had to be
put, to which limits this should be put. In doing so, the grounds for freedom of expression and
the limitations of freedom of expression would be elucidated.
Imagine a world where any person could speak whatever they wished. This would be a
world of chaos. To put it in reality context, what would happen when the prospective employees
are asked about their sexuality or their religion during their interview? Would the advertisements
in which the advertisers make fantastical claims on their products magically solving the

Human Rights 3
problems of the consumers be acceptable? To highlight the gravity of this situation, should the
attorneys of psychiatrists be allowed to publicise the information of their clients? It is very clear
that all this should not be allowed. There is a need for a certain level of limitation to be place on
the freedom of speech in every society, due to such good reasons. The notion of free speech has a
lot of supporters, but there are a few only who do believe in it to be completed unrestricted. This
is due to the fact that unrestricted free speech is not practical or feasible. The productive societies
require line to be drawn, for politeness and peace to prevail. Any claim regarding the need for an
unrestrained free speech is untrue. Just because one supports the limitations on free speech, does
not mean that a person is pro censorship or that they are anti-debate. A leading example of this is
Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a champ at internet trolls and free speech. The work he undertakes on
the debate panels can be considered as the master class in avoidance and steamrolling. He does
not engage in something which can be deemed as real conversation, and the sole reason for it is
that hate speech cannot be worked with debate (O’Reilly & Walsh, 2017).
Hate speech is a leading problem, which results in a lot of criminal activities in the
nation. Hate speech is something which has no rationality in it. It is highly unlikely that a person
who puts forth extremely hateful views would be engaged in any level headed debate on that
very topic. The sentiment, wishful one, regarding the emotional claims being overcome through
the rational discussion is at best naive. Hate speech is not something which should be up for
debate (Alexander, 2005). There is no need of carrying a discussion on debating that women are
equally intelligent to men. And yet, such topics are becoming very common, and more and more
prevalent with the ever prominent alt-right. Apart from this, the state has the power to put up
certain restrictions, particularly on the destructive action of the citizens (Mendel, 2010). The

Human Rights 4
individuals are made to drive within speed limits, and are not allowed to harm others; and where
this is done, the individuals are punished. The same weight needs to be given to the
consequences of such actions which are conducted through the words used by the person
(Waldron, 2012).
Violence can be incited by professing hate. The famous proverb that pen is mightier than
sword is a leading proof of it. The relentless online abuse, the death threats and the bomb threats,
which even result in some cases of suicides, cannot be defended just in the name of free speech.
The individuals do have a right of expressing themselves, doing what they wish, but this is
possible as long as the freedom of other people, for doing the same, is not invaded. This is
particularly important as an unbridled freedom of expression could breach the same right of
others (Yong, 2011). The internet is the leading example of unbridled freedom of expression
going completely wrong. The internet is taken as a platform which gives the individuals the
opportunity of rousing the productive discussions and debates; and yet, this has been abused. The
prime example of wrong use of free speech on internet is the articles posted on different
websites. The comments were initially intended to be the extension on debates, changes and
discussions on the articles, and yet it translated into hate filled mess. This is the reason why a
number of media outlets have altogether removed the comment sections.
One of the leading websites ‘Vice’ stated that the spew of misogynistic and racist
maelstroms in which the most offensive, stupidest and loudest opinions are mostly pushed at the
very top, and due to these reasons, they opted out of the comments sections. The newspaper giant
The Guardian reported that when they looked at their comments sections, they found a correlated
between the blocked comments on an article to the journalist’s religion, sexuality or gender. The