[466 International's Eye] Where Is the Line of Freedom of Speech

   We are normally guaranteed the right to express our opinions over the past few centuries, and this right is called “The right to freedom of speech (the right of speech).” The right is to express opinions without censorship or interference, and extends to any medium, such as oral and written conversation, broadcasting, public protest and so on (in some countries, there is still strict censorship of public opinions). However, it seems that this right is not absolute, and there are limits of rights, and I think that the key could be found by discussing “defamation” and “hate speech.” In this essay, I will discuss some cases of the right of speech that we would normally have first, and delve into what the limitations of the right to freedom of speech are, giving some examples that do not include the cases, and my personal perspectives, and then conclude the limit of freedom of speech.

   In day-to-day life, one of the most common cases where we could enjoy the right of speech would be online platform such as “online comment sections.” We are supposed to have the right to express our opinions on what we think, so we are allowed to type whatever we think in the comment section. Some are positive, some are negative, and I think that it is totally fine to express negative opinions because we are guaranteed the right, and the content that you see might be really bad or offensive to you. In this case, the boundary of the right of speech could be quite broad. Another specific case would be a personal conversation with others. Discussing social issues by sharing your opinions could be personal and against others, but even if your opinion is against others, you have the right of speech, and it is 100 percent guaranteed. However, as mentioned earlier, the right of speech is not absolute, so let us take a look into some of those cases that I personally think.

   One of limits of the right of speech could include “defamation.” Defamation is often referred to as the action of attacking individuals or groups “with no clear evidence or clue.” In many countries, individuals and groups are protected by laws, and those who crossed the line would be punished by laws even though they are guaranteed to have the right of speech. This case could be the limitation of the right of speech. But in order to define the boundary of the right of speech, it is needed to clear up the difference between “defamation” and “hate speech.”

   Hate speech is basically intended to attack specific groups or individuals based on race, gender, religion, language, and from this point, we could say that defamation and hate speech are two sides of the same coin. But defamation is basically the action with no evidence or proof while hate speech could be the action “based on the fact.”

   For example, one of your family members or friends was killed by a specific person that speaks a different language, is a different gender, follows a different religion. In this case, you would feel hatred for them and could act like a racist and end up hate speech, and in most cases, hate speech would be just speech and protected by the right of speech, which could be considered legal.

   In conclusion, the boundary of the right of speech is largely dependent on public order and morals. Especially in terms of hate speech, the boundary is quite vague, so I have to conclude that the limit of the right of speech is subject to legal and illegal action, but I never ever justify hate speech, and to make a better society, we all need to understand the balance of the rights that we enjoy.