My father was engaged in a serious kind of meeting with his employees, and I entered the office shouting at him for some reason. The event took place because I had Freedom of Speech. You would rightly say, ‘This is not freedom’. Everyone knows that freedom has its boundaries and ethical values. The word ‘freedom’ has many implications. So, I would not vote for the Freedom of Speech and recommend some limitations on this issue.

I think all human activities need some check, and this check applies especially to speaking. The freedom may raise lawlessness and disorder among different social groups, creeds and castes. Undoubtedly, everyone should be free to broadcast and propagate his ideas but he should not criticize others’ ideologies. The context of the speech should always be followed. Everyone should observe the “constitutive” objectives, set by the government, and universal moral laws. (Sadurski, 1999)

 Since there is no specific set of limits on informal speech, ‘no complete categorization’ is possible. It simply suggests that personal ethical development is compulsory. A person should cautiously choose slang and the like. Informal language is used with intimate ones but, unfortunately, the basis of every tussle starts with the usage of informal language. Hence, full freedom should not be allowed with closest ones. Some would claim: “we cannot share our hearts with our intimate ones by being formal. None of our friends’ minds language”. Despite all the reasons given, the research shows that language becomes the first reason for, even physical fights, among friends. (Bracken, 1994)

Lastly, not only the choice of words should be checked but also the manner of speech should be courteous. The polite language use needs narrow tailoring. Shouting, screaming, yawing, and crying cannot come under of umbrella of courteous speech. A civilized culture restricts these behaviours in speech, and label them as stigma of speech, rather than freedom of speech. Even the neutral words, if spoken harshly, may cause tension. One can say a person should flow with natural emotions. It does not sound cultured. Culture and cultivation need some trimming and training on the part of an individual. Individuals establish a society, and societies make a nation. So, we cannot sacrifice national dignity at the cost of an individual’s so-called Freedom of Speech. The absolutist doctrine of freedom of speech is unacceptable among all the well-educated nations of the world.    

Bibliography

Bracken, H. M. (1994). Freedom of Speech: Words are Not Deeds. United States: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Sadurski, W. (1999). Freedom of Speech and its Limits. Sydney: Kluwer Academic Publishers.