Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right in most countries of the world. Still, even the most civilized nations, where human rights are respected to a large extent, have recently found themselves in murky waters over the extent of freedom people should have in expressing themselves in words. Freedom of speech like every other good thing in life can be abused. We have seen people incite violence, and recruit terrorists with smooth convincing words to promote an evil cause. Our words could be deadlier than a nuclear weapon! So, freedom of speech cannot be absolute, or else the world will be in chaos due to human nature’s dark side. There is no good thing that a human being cannot abuse and use wrongly or selfishly.
Now that we have established that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, the first hurdle in effectively and fairly limiting freedom of speech is choosing who determines the extent of people’s right to express themselves with words. Should it be the government? If the limit to freedom of speech is largely controlled the government, then countries with bad leaders will shut down every needed criticism against their evil and selfish actions, and oppression will become rampant. Democracy will be dead because when people cannot criticize their leaders as they become rulers. Their powers become absolute, and that absolute power will corrupt their minds, and a depraved mind begets tyranny.
Most nations with lots of corrupt officials see social media as an impediment to unchallenged lawlessness for people of their rank, because of this, they become hostile towards its existence for anything other than flaunting their wealth and enforcing personal selfish and egotistic wishes on the masses, under the guise of public interest. Most things categorized as public interest most governments are often a far cry from public opinion and the House of Representatives, who should be on the side of the masses are estranged from the people they serve, and therefore as independent individuals, they often prefer to side with the government, which is a more financially promising move, compared to upholding the wishes of the common man they represent. There are only a few nations structured in such a way that the wishes of the masses can be seamlessly communicated to the members of the House of Representatives representing them, and there are consequences for not representing the people in the manner and weight they desire. It is very common to see members of the House of reps go against public opinion shared the people of their constituency without any significant backlash. So, the proper representation of the wishes of the masses is only left to altruism, since only a few elites who make it into the House of reps have this quality, the people are left stranded in terms of the representation of their common beliefs and opinion at the big stage, where actions are decided upon, and changes are made accordingly.
Leaving freedom of speech solely in the hands of the government officials of a particular country is not a very good option, especially in countries where soulless politicians are suppressing the rule of Law.