Free Speech Revised

STUDENT’S NAME
PROFESSOR’S NAME
COURSE NUMBER
DATE
FREE SPEECH
Preposition-A danger of restricting internet content is that authoritarian countries use public safety as an excuse to limit free speech-con
Although everyone has the right to access information, public safety is paramount that is why it is not dangerous when authoritative countries limit free speech for the sake of the safety of its people. Most of these countries have the mandate to restrict speech in platforms such as social media without consulting the public. This is after considering and analyzing the impacts that free speech might have on the safety of the people.
It is necessary to limit free speech after the authoritarian countries have analyzed the content of the speech or videos and are convinced that such might stir war amongst the people. When there is war or violence, many innocent citizens will be harmed or killed. An example is an anti-Islamic video showing the murder of United States ambassador as highlighted by (Somini 1). This could have incited war and even killings in Libya and Egypt that’s why it was necessary that the video be a ban in these two countries.
Limiting free speech for the sake of public safety is also necessary to avoid issues such as racism that is common especially on the internet. Some countries have been fighting racism for many centuries now. Racism threatens public safety as people who belong to a particular race might feel threatened or discriminated against leading to unrest in a country.

Therefore it is not dangerous when free speech that is considered racist is limited.
Shutting down of mobile networks to enhance safety and security of both public and visiting prominent leaders, for instance, international leaders is common. Especially when there are big events attended by many people. This is one way of ensuring security and safety of the public.
It is also essential that the government block and stop websites that promote hate speech and communications associated with terrorism. It is evident that hate speech and terrorists are significant causes of violence and killings. (Somini 2) indicate that there have been efforts by YouTube to cancel links to Anwar Awlaki’s speech that promotes terrorism. This is what authoritative countries are also doing. To revoke speeches that might lead to public unrest and threaten peace in the nations.
Free speech is not an excuse for protecting the people from the evil government as discussed by (Economist 10) .most people, especially activists use free speech to insult the state and its policies. Therefore it is crucial for authoritative countries to limit such speech. Speech that is against the government might incite the people to act against the ruling regime which might lead to political instability in such a country.
It is also not dangerous when authoritative countries limit free speech when the companies concerned with online content do not stick to the guidelines that protect public safety. It is also necessary to restrict free speech or contents that are deemed obscene from the public and especially children. This will help in upholding the moral values of individuals.
Rebuttal and question
Banning information in China and restricting the use of Facebook, Google and YouTube have helped to keep the public out of obscene content because it is true that there are much unsupervised and unregulated content and information that could upset the public. This has promoted public safety.
There is also no harm when the Chinese government limits free speech that might try to expose its past scandals. It is good if that is kept away from public knowledge so that the people can have confidence in their government. This will also promote peace and instability.
Which is more important? Public Safety or Free Speech?
Works Cited.
Economist. “Under Attack; Curbs on Free Speech are Growing Tighter. It is time to speak up.” Leaders (2016).
Somini, Sengupta. “Free Speech in the Age of YouTube.” The New York Times (2012).