Question

If one were to go by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone would have a "right" to "freedom of speech and expression"

The freedom calls for evaluative neutrality on part of the government, as offensive and discriminatory as the speech and expression may be

People believe censorship to be "ineffectual" or worse, drawing attention to and making martyrs out of censored populations, spreading rather than extinguishing fires, and weakening characters that would have matured and risen above difficulty

"What happened to stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me? Noone should be the arbiter of morality. You should learn to toughen up," they say

What does philosophy have to say about that?

Answer 1

The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right, but it is subject to certain restrictions. Philosophically, there are arguments for and against censorship and the need for restrictions on speech. Balancing individual freedoms and societal interests is key.

Step-by-step explanation:

The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is outlined in Article 19 of the UDHR, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to certain restrictions. For example, speech that includes libel, slander, obscenity, threats, incitement of lawless conduct, breach of national security, or perjury is not protected.

Philosophically, the issue of freedom of speech is complex. Some argue that censorship can be ineffective and may draw attention to and create martyrs out of censored populations. They believe that individuals should learn to toughen up and that no one should be the arbiter of morality. However, others argue that harmful speech can have negative consequences and that certain restrictions can be justified to protect individuals and society.

In essence, freedom of speech is a valued right, but it is not without limitations. Balancing individual freedoms and societal interests is crucial when navigating the complexities of this issue.