Can restrictions on freedom of speech ever be justified?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, restrictions on speech are justified only under limited conditions. I hold this view for mainly three reason

First, certain types of speech, such as hate speech, should not be permitted even in the name of free speech. This is because one person’s speech should not infringe on another person’s freedom of speech, as freedom of speech is a right for all individuals.

Next, violent speech and slander against private individuals can promote anarchy through free speech. This destabilizes the current democratic social system, making it illogical to guarantee these freedoms of speech through the Constitution.

In addition, some might argue that freedom of speech should be kept firmly, which also makes sense. To guarantee free speech, limitations on free speech should be minimal, and the Constitution should be the basis for determining the validity of such limitations, with the courts, not the government, making the final decision. The government must respect people’s right to express themselves without censorship.

In conclusion, I am convinced that freedom of speech is a vital human right but can be restricted in certain cases, based on the reasons mentioned above. (203 words)