In the article, “Should a Hated
Word Be Banned?” Rabbi Dov Lipman says that “every country has to establish
certain value-based limits” in her speech. My opinion on this controversy is
that I do not agree.
If
every country were to establish value-based limits, it would take away freedom
of speech. No matter how hated a word might be; banning it wouldn’t be a
solution to the issue. For example, in the article it says, “The First
Amendment protects freedom of expression even if the views expressed are extremely
offensive to most people.” I believe that the First Amendment is correct and
that freedom of speech should not be overlooked.
Another
reason I do not agree with Lipman’s statement is because everyone has different
values/beliefs. For example, in the text Fuchs states, “You measure the freedom
of speech in a democratic country in the freedom to say these disturbing and
annoying things, not in what is nice and pleasant to hear.” Whether you believe
that a certain belief, opinion, or a certain word that someone says is adequate
or inadequate, it should be respected.
In
conclusion, I disagree with Lipman’s statement. A country should not be in
charge of what people are allowed to say or believe in because of freedom of
speech. In addition, different people have different values and insights
towards certain things, and whether agreeable or non agreeable, you have to
respect their opinions.
